Re: [SPKM] Re: [67th IETF] SPKM3 BOF announcement

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:57:58PM -0700, Mike Eisler wrote:
> > I'd like to think that the individual submission path should be
> > workable for security area work.  In particular I think neither an
> > SPKM-4/5 nor a DTLS based GSS mechanism should require forming a WG.
> > And if there
> 
> Well if sufficient numbers of people want to form a WG, and
> if IESG accepts, then whether or not individual submissions work
> is irrelevant.

Yes, BoFs can result in no WG formation, even if there is sufficient
interest.

> I like WGs because the related I-Ds are collected in one place in
> the WG web page and I don't have to organize it: IETF's web masters
> organize it. I like WGs because there is a physical forum every
> 4 months for people to meet, rather than me having to
> arrange with the local Holiday Inn for a conference room (it's
> worth the $700 or so I pay IETF 3X a year to arrange
> all this). Etc.

WGs aren't free though.  And lack of WGs does not preclude having
working meetings at IETF conferences for disucssing individual
submissions.

One possible addition to the potential charter of an SPKM WG that might
help foster WG formation would be this item from the KITTEN WG charter:

 o Guidelines for GSS-API mechanism designers

Since KITTEN has not gotten around to that item, and since that item
seems rather relevant to this SPKM effort, it makes sense to consider
moving it to any WG that results from this BoF.

Nico
-- 

_______________________________________________
SPKM mailing list
SPKM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spkm