Hi Bob, et al ...
I think it is time to put the real (IMNSHO) reasons for wanting to set
a new ietf-list for the new ietf-work.
1. Mailing lists are not a scare commodity which we must conserve by
re-using old (worn out) lists.
2. It is important to focus the new discussions down to the set of
really interested parties who directy show their interest by
signing up on a new list.
3. All this is part of an IETF interest in not perpetuating working
groups by finding new work for old (worn out) groups so the
members can continue workign on something together, ala ISO, ITU.
4. This boils down to a process of renewal for all IETF Working
Groups. No WG should be allowed to just roll over and pick up new
work without a fresh start, whcih includes a new mailing list and
a new BOF.
Thus, I and others lobbied earnestly for a Reset/Restart on the
ietf-payments Charter effort in order to shed any appearance of old
mailign list bias in the development of the new charter.
If the people who spent 5+ years thrashing over PEM-DEV all want to
get involved with IETF-Payments, they have been told where to sign up,
but there is no reason why IETF-Payments should inherit their hangover
or their name.
As for your avid and worthwhile interest in solving the CA dilemma, I
suggest that you start a new BOF effort, with a new mailing list, to
be widely announced, and go for a new cut at the whole problem.
I don't see why all CA work should shoulder the history of PEM-DEV.
BTW, I would say the same even if PEM-DEV had managed to deliver on
its original plans.
So, that is my contribution to this current situation;-)...\Stef
From Bob's message Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:15:21 EST:
}
}Dave,
}
}I appreciate your comments, and of course you are correct. I was trying to
}suggest to make some progress in these various areas that would capitalize on
}the historical interests and expertise of the various participants, more than
}the specifc, IETF-endorsed charter.
}...SnipSnip8<+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++