Re: Motions before the WG

["todd glassey" <[e-mail]>]

Jeff and Marcus - What I have proposed is that the Charter of PKIX be
amended since there are major differences in how it is operated and what it
produces relative to your other groups. Also the opening paragraph of the
Charter is more of a road-map of historical accomplishments and really says
nothing about what the group is to be doing or how it operates.

As to this effort -  I have gotten some specific negative feedback from a
few of the "louder voices" on the list that this is not good. The problem is
that they all have Drafts and RFC's that would be effected by this
requirement which brings up and issue of propriety.

Further I wanted to submit a motion to curtail the breadth of the WG's
Chair's powers and require that PKIX, because it deals with protocols
specific to commerce, authentication and security applications that it like
other IETF WGs accept any number of protocols for standardization, and not
make any specific or unspoken requirement that there be only one protocol of
each type.

The motions are below in the text. They have nothing to do with BERT.

Oddly enough I have received numerous messages from people that have much to
lose if the WG turned against them, but they have applauded my commentary
and direction which tells me what I am doing here is right.

---

Tim - I heard you loud and clear as the WG Chair formally closing down this
line of conversation on this list - and will make this the closing remark
and transfer this to the IESG's mailing list. I have no intention of letting
this drop and intend to see these reforms brought into  PKIX or the public's
and other Standards Org's perception of the IETF adjusted accordingly.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Polk" <[e-mail]>
To: "todd glassey" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Marcus Leech" <[e-mail]>; "Stephen
Kent" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Motions before the WG


> Todd,
>
> At 08:43 AM 11/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
> >My apologies to all - I have to run for a couple of days so I will not be
to
> >spend the time to craft my responses to the last couple of retorts to the
> >proposals I have made.
> >
> >Oh - But I do intend to respond  - Just give me a day or so.
>
> Please don't bother.  There is no point continuing this thread, since
there
> is clear consensus on the list.  You are the only one who believes the
PKIX
> WG should be compelled to accept every "properly formatted draft".

Tim, the people that said 'no' are predominently the people that cannot, or
refuse to, give any good real world descriptions on how to use their
protocols, so I take offense to this comment of yours. The Archive will bear
me out. Further it is inappropriate for you to be taking the stance you are
here.

But for the record I have to ask - what is the problem with adding a
requirement that becuase of the application-centricity of PKI that its
"standards" require a statement of how to use them or what their scope is? I
want a specific answer here, not just one that says "it will slow the
process down too much"

> You are
> the only one who believes the PKIX WG should accept and promote a document
> that the vast majority of WG participants do not support, based on the
> marketing needs of the submitter.

What document are you talking about?  BERT? get a clue bro - what has BERT
to do with the need to "define what it is that a PKI protocol is used for
and how to use it?" -- and the BERT Draft would also require one of these.

And for the record - what I said is "that it is unreasonable for you alone
as WG Chairs' to make a determination as to what will and wont get worked
on.".

>

> I understand that the failure of BERT to progress within PKIX cost you
> funding.  However, that is *not* the fault of the group or the chairs.

No again -  BERT had nothing to do with it - Bert is just a Data Blob to
represent events in time and space. It also needed a use model.

> It
> was your responsibility to build consensus within the group.  You were
> permitted to present the draft in the PKIX group at the Oslo meeting,
> weren't you?

Again What defines consensus - YOU DO - and that is what is broken.

> You were unable to build support within the WG for this
> specification, so it did not progress in PKIX.  That is the way the
process
> works.

Again  - What have the issues before the WG have to do with BERT? It seems
that you folks are really threatened by the concept of being accountable.

And for the last time - what this effort has to do with is adding
accountability to your role within the PKIX WG . And the only people that
are pushing back on that is you.

So what was it exactly that I asking for? Several things as Changes to the
Charter listed below:

    1)    Eliminating the WG Chair's ability to run OpenLoop by defining
their specific functions instead of  the wide-open "Wide latitude" statment
that they are now constrained by . This is to effect PKIX only and may also
be submitted as a proposed amenedment to 2026 for general use, but PKIX will
still be constrained by it.

Part of this process will mean putting  in-place a method of advancing a
Draft to RFC that was purely mechanical, as would be the next step. This
means that any drafts submitted get advanced. (BTW - I see this as a key
component in maintaining control over what other groups adopt from us and do
not - and as such it also has to do with maintaining value in the Standard's
process). The IESG may push back on this and demand that it go through a
formal POISSON but I'll address that with them in a separate forum.

    2)    To add a requirement that a  statement from submitters as to what
their protocol is to be used for or is use requirements is now mandatory for
any draft or RFC being escalated to the next step. We donw need a users
guide but something that is more than just a External Reference
Specification would be nice.

    3)    Reinforcing that the role of the PKIX WG Chair is that of a Mentor
or Facilitator and not Judge and Jury. To do this the role and function of
the PKIX WG Chairs needs to be extended from what is submitted in the IETF's
WG Charter Specifications (2026 and follow on documents). This should be
accomplished by a section in each WG's Charter.

    4)    That the Charters opening paragraph be transfered to the "History
Section" since that is what it is. That a real Charter be put in place that
constrains the fairness and open standards environment that the IETF is
founded on.

>
> If you wish to pursue this further, I strongly suggest you take this
matter
> up with the two Security Area Directors.  (The ADs are Jeff Schiller and
> Marcus Leech; I have cc'ed them on this message, so you won't need to look
> up their email addresses.)  IETF Working Group chairs serve at the
pleasure
> of the ADs.

Marcus and Jeff - Consider this submitted to you for consideration.

> If you can convince them that Steve and I are the problem,
> they have the power to rectify the situation.

Tim - you are being obtuse here. I never said resign - I never said that you
and Steve are ***the*** problem. What I have said is that the Charter was
the problem and have said this from Day One of this posting.

You have tried in your responses to make this personal and have failed bro -
its not about BERT or anything like that. Its about propriety and the
potential appearance of impropriety in this, a global standards
organization. Its about bringing culpability and a realizble process to PKIX
and building more interoperability and communitcation into what PKIX
produces. Its also about insuring the value of what PKIX produces in this,
the Global Internet/Networking Standards Committees.

> If you can convince them
> that the IETF process is hopelessly flawed, they are in a much better
> position to influence the IESG to make the appropriate changes.
>
> Now, I would like to see the group get back to the important work at
> hand.  We have some very important documents in front of the group,
> especially the DPD/DPV requirements and specification drafts.  Let's get
> the discussion back to the technical content this group is chartered to
> deliver.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim Polk
>
> >Todd

--- SNIP - Denis' original response ---