Re: [IPsec] Beginning the PAKE selection process

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 2:07 PM -0700 5/24/10, Dan Harkins wrote:
>  This is out-of-line.

Would it have been less out-of-line if I, the other co-chair wrote it? Or if someone who is not a co-chair but understands how the IETF process is supposed to work wrote it?

FWIW, I agree with what Yaron wrote. If there is little or no interest in advancing this work other than from the authors of the drafts, we should strongly consider taking it out of the WG charter. You disagree, and others might agree with you or with Yaron.

>  I apologize for the tardiness of my post kicking off discussion on my
>candidate proposal but I was traveling for the past week-and-a-half and
>was otherwise indisposed. Hopefully this will start a discussion but if
>it doesn't then I would expect the same treatment of this work item as
>that given to EAP-only.

Your candidate proposal (and the other two candidate proposals) do not have the same standing as the single EAP-only draft. We are supposed to be choosing one proposal first, then working on that one. If there is not enough interest to even choose a proposal among three (so far) that seem to be reasonably well worked-out, why should we believe that there will be enough interest to adequately review the chosen proposal?

It would be grand if the authors of even one of the various proposals could get enough independent interest in their proposals to show that we can do good work on the charter item. Dan has started a thread on his proposal; I assume Yaron will do so as well. What counts to me is whether others take up the threads with "that sounds right" or "that doesn't meet my criteria for this reason" and so on.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium