Subject: RE: TAP - Yes in a new group

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:21:06 -0800

I think that TAP is a useful addtion, but I would like to see the PKIX
group restrict itself to direct issues of what certificates are and how
to get them and move out of the how to use them field.

jim

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:38:47 +0200

The more I think of this, the more I agree with Jim.

Some thoughts...

This either is or is not something that is highly needed and wanted by the 
market, IN THIS FORM. I personally don't know right now.
But if it is, then it seams to me that it applies more to a signature 
infrastructure, than just the Public Key Infrastructure.

And as being useful for non-repudiation, a work group may consider 
solutions that is outside the scope of just X.509 and ASN.1.
E.g. How could XML signatures benefit from this?

/Stefan

>to get them and move out of the how to use them field.

_____________________________
Stefan Santesson,  Retrospekt AB
http://www.retrospekt.com
+46-706 443351

---

From: tho <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:24:30 +0200

> to get them and move out of the how to use them field.

Personally I have nothing against a new WG for dealing with TAP and other 
applications based on PKIX if this just aims at a simpler/more efficient
work-load distribution.  But really, there is no "philosophical" reason 
for which TAP can be considered different from the TSP or DVCS efforts which,
in fact, have grown within the PKIX-WG scope.

Thomas

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 05:20:01 -0800

There is a larger inherent question regarding PKIX and that is "Must all of
PKIX be involved with each project" and then the issue is how the project
team deals with the WG Chair - do they answer questions re their efforts, do
they file updates in a timely manner, etc.

The problem is that the way PKIX is setup, the WG Chairs are personally
involved in the evolution of each protocol that goes through the group and
that is a serious issue I think.

Also DVCS and many of the non-core x509 tools are also outside the scope of
the Purest-Form-of-PKI so how do they fit and TAP not?  RFC2026 talks to the
need to implement fair and equal environments. And when PKIX didn't have
anything on its plate it took what it could get - core PKI or otherwise. For
instance how is the TSP part of any core protocol? Its not clearly.

So what has happened is that with this management model, management is
saying that it is loaded too much - this is not a issue with what is
processed with PKIX but rather for the mandate from two individuals that
they must have a hands on in everything they do. If they were to set up a
defined vetting process for their drafts and rfc's this would also not be
such a problem but rather than be pro-active they insist that this happen
elsewhere in the IETF and that wont occur until someone sues the
organization, at least as far as I can tell.

Its why this deck can be stacked from the gate. Is it time to do anything
about it?

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Michael Myers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:42:37 -0800

I vote to redirect TAP away from PKIX.

Mike