Hi Rick.  I completely agree.  It's covered in the last paragraph of the draft 
charter.  In the near future I'll distribute an updated charter proposal.  All 
the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Rick Andrews
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:56 PM
To: Adam Langley; Tim Moses
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [wpkops] Scope

Tim, I think the 1% fuzzy threshold is fine. But I really hope that the sum 
total of connections that use Web PKI includes mobile browsers and apps. I've 
heard anecdotally that mobile represents a large and ever-growing share of web 
use, and I think it's essential to include it.

-Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Adam Langley
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:09 AM
> To: Tim Moses
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [wpkops] Scope
> 
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Tim Moses <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Colleagues - As discussed, the idea is to document the Web PKI as it 
> > is
> practiced today.  Generally, that means considering product versions 
> other than the most recent one from each significant supplier.  But, 
> in order to keep the workload at a manageable level, we will have to 
> eliminate product versions that are seldom encountered today.  Without 
> making reference to specific products and versions, it's tough to come 
> up with an objective criterion for identifying the versions that deserve to 
> be documented.
> Therefore, I believe we have to rely on experts' judgments.
> >
> > As a guide, we might agree that, in order to warrant consideration, 
> > a
> technique must be involved in more than one percent of connections 
> that use the Web PKI.  While we would not attempt to apply this 
> threshold with any precision, contributors may appeal to it in order 
> to justify their exclusion of a particular technique. Then the 
> disputant would be called upon to demonstrate that the technique was more 
> prevalent.
> >
> > What do others think?
> 
> 1% seems reasonable although, if anything, a little high. There are 
> workarounds that apply to less than 1% but are, none the less, 
> important. But any number 0.1%..1% seems sane.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> AGL
> _______________________________________________
> wpkops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
_______________________________________________
wpkops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops

Reply via email to