I think my answer to Ron is probably identical to my answer to Hannes, so I am
not going to retype it.
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 31 January 2013 15:14
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [wpkops] FW: Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-00-01:
> (with BLOCK)
> 
> 
> Me too!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:08 AM
> > To: Ronald Bonica
> > Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [wpkops] FW: Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-
> > 00-01: (with BLOCK)
> >
> > Hi Ron, Hi Adrian,
> >
> > I am curious what the blocking objection is when the text that Adrian
> > proposes does not in any way change the charter.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> > On Jan 30, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Adrian Farrel has posted a blocking objection to the proposed WPKOPS
> > charter and offered alternative text (attached). IMHO, the text that
> > Adrian proposes does not in any way change the WG's charter.
> > >
> > > Does anyone object to using Adrian's alternative text?
> > >
> > >                                                Ron
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:47 PM
> > >> To: Ronald Bonica; 'The IESG'
> > >> Subject: RE: Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-00-01:
> > >> (with
> > >> BLOCK)
> > >>
> > >> Alright Ron,
> > >>
> > >> How does the attached look? I believe I have captured all of the WG
> > >> actions, and all of the out of scope items.
> > >>
> > >> But I have also tried to remove a lot of the explanation and
> > history.
> > >> I can believe this is interesting, but not that it belongs in the
> > >> charter.
> > >>
> > >> If it is no good, throw it out and I will probably Noobj the charter
> > >> (given the "urgency" :-)
> > >>
> > >> A
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > Behalf
> > >>> Of Ronald Bonica
> > >>> Sent: 30 January 2013 15:12
> > >>> To: Adrian Farrel; The IESG
> > >>> Subject: RE: Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-00-01:
> > >> (with
> > >>> BLOCK)
> > >>>
> > >>> Adrian,
> > >>>
> > >>> The two paragraphs below, taken from the charter, tell you what the
> > >> WG will do:
> > >>>
> > >>> "Starting from the premise that more consistency in Web security
> > >>> behavior is desirable, a natural first step is to document current
> > >> and
> > >>> historic browser and server behavior, including: the trust model on
> > >>> which they are based; the contents and processing of fields and
> > >>> extensions; the processing of the various revocation schemes; and
> > >>> how the TLS stack deals with PKI, including varying interpretations
> > >>> and implementation errors, as well as state changes visible to the
> > user.
> > >>> Where appropriate, specific products and specific versions of those
> > >>> products will be identified."
> > >>>
> > >>> "Future activities may attempt to prescribe how the Web PKI
> > "should"
> > >>> work, and the prescription may turn out to be a proper subset of
> > the
> > >>> PKIX PKI.  However, that task is explicitly not a goal of the
> > >> proposed
> > >>> working group.  Instead, the group's goal is merely to describe how
> > >>> the Web PKI "actually" works in the set of browsers and servers
> > that
> > >>> are in common use today."
> > >>>
> > >>> I wouldn't fault the authors for providing "reams of background
> > >> text".
> > >>> When crafting this text, they were very aware of the fact that the
> > >>> were writing to an audience that had no background in the area.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you want to take a crack at wordsmithing the charter, go for it.
> > >>>
> > >>>                                Ron
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> > >> Behalf
> > >>>> Of Adrian Farrel
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:37 AM
> > >>>> To: The IESG
> > >>>> Subject: Adrian Farrel's Block on charter-ietf-wpkops-00-01: (with
> > >>>> BLOCK)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
> > >>>> charter-ietf-wpkops-00-01: Block
> > >>>>
> > >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > >>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > >>>> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >> -
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> BLOCK:
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > >> -
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Look, I am in favor of forming this working group, but this is a
> > >>>> really awful draft charter! Far too much waffle, and far too
> > little
> > >>>> about what the WG will actually do.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I could have a stab at rewriting, but I doubt I know wnough about
> > >>>> the topic to make a good job.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can someone tell me that the reams of text are actually needed, or
> > >>>> can someone please take an axe to it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >
> > > <wpkops.txt>_______________________________________________
> > > 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