Re: Who is retarding Pem standards?

[[e-mail]]

I really hate to sound like Bernstein, but I'm beginning to understand why
he got so angry.  Your message is a marvel of evasion.  You did not answer
the question.  Furthermore, "multiple suites" has never been discussed
(except for saying that we would include a Government suite if there ever
was one), is NOT a "minor issue", and is unacceptable if you plan to sneak
in a proprietary suite.  Even if you have another suite to add, it can be
added later, just like a Government suite.  

Please take another crack at a reply.  Either state the technical issue for
public discussion (including specifying the additional suite of algorithms
that you propose), or pass the documents to the IESG *NOW* (with or without
your concurrence).  You have no right to keep everyone in the dark and
bottle this up for your own profit.

At 10:00 AM 11/9/92 -0500, Stephen D Crocker wrote:
>
>My fault at the moment.
>Until recently I was waiting for Steve Kent to declare them done and
>he was waiting for me to process them.  Some minor issue to be
>resolved with respect to multiple suites in RFC1115bis; otherwise the
>main problem is my time.
>
>Steve

------------------------------------------------
Crocker's message was in reply to the following:
------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:00:28 -0500
To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Who is retarding Pem standards?
Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mdf: Mail for shirey sent to  [e-mail]

The following is a condensation of a recent message:

>From: IESG Secretary <[e-mail]>

>The IESG has received a request from the TELNET Working Group to
>consider the Internet Draft "Telnet Environment Option"
><draft-ietf-telnet-environment-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
>The IESG plans to issue a recommendation in the next few weeks, and
>solicits final comments on this elevation.
>
>Greg Vaudreuil 
>IESG Secretary

** WHY HAVEN'T WE SEEN SUCH A MESSAGE CONCERNING THE FOUR PEM DOCUMENTS? **

At the last PEM WG in Cambridge, Mass.in July, minor finishing touches were
put on the drafts.  These were updated and resubmitted as Internet-Drafts
with the following dates:

   Sep  2 03:56 draft-ietf-pem-forms-01.txt
   Aug  7 03:54 draft-ietf-pem-keymgmt-01.txt
   Jul 25 03:54 draft-ietf-pem-msgproc-02.txt
   Sep  2 03:56 draft-ietf-pem-notary-00.txt

The meeting understood that these were to be ASAP passed to the IESG.  We
understood that the PEM WG Chair and the IESG Security Area Director had
this action.  Why have they not been processed?  Whether the reference
implementation is ready or not is irrelevant.  Others are interested in
implementing and deploying, too.

Are we to wait until the IETF this month, only to find that we are
discussing the same drafts again in the PEM WG?  I think people should act
VERY ANNNOYED if that happens.  WGs are supposed to exist as a mailing
list, and as much business is supposed to be done that way as possible.  If
someone decided to hold up these standards, they were obligated to inform
pem-dev immediately so that the issues could be resolved.  I have not
received such a message.

The language of Greg's message is interesting.  "The IESG has received a
request *FROM THE TELNET WORKING GROUP* to consider the Internet Draft . .
."  If there is a concensus of the WG that these standards are ready to
advance, I intend to move that the WG Chair send them directly to the IESG
Chair.

There should be a real sense of urgency here.  The PEM capability is
intended to provide a significant social benefit for many persons around
the world.  RSA has given away RSARef to make it possible for everyone to
benefit.  If PEM is not advanced quickly, stuff like PGP will blunt its
effectiveness.

(It is also possible that the Government may try to make the whole thing
illegal before it can be deployed widely.  That would not stop use by
scattered groups, but it would eliminate commercial support and an
integrated, Internet-wide system.)  

The first PEM RFC, #989, was published in February 1987.  That means some
of us have been working on this for more than six years.  Any further
delays are intolerable.  Let's get it on.

Regards, -Rob-


Robert W. Shirey, The MITRE Corporation, Mail Stop Z202
7525 Colshire Dr., McLean, Virginia  22102-3481  USA
[e-mail] * tel [phone] * fax [phone]