Subject: The Time Stamp Protocol (v10)...

From: Carlisle Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:19:46 -0400

Hi Todd,

> ----------
> From: 	todd glassey[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, October 24, 2000 12:34 PM
> To: 	Denis Pinkas; IETF-PXIX
> Subject: 	Re: TSP. Version 10
> 
> What I suggest is rather than advancing this effort to a Draft Standard,
> that some thought of what the protocol is supposed to accomplish in the
> real
> world and under what constraints it must be operated to accomplish these
> things be added to the draft as well as the processes it already
> memorializes.
 
The plan is NOT to advance this effort to "Draft Standard", but rather to
"Proposed Standard" (i.e., the first step in the standardization process,
not the second -- although this has taken so long it's surprising we're not
at the third step by now!).

As far as I can tell from occasional glimpses at the never-ending threads on
time stamping, you are the only one asking for the above additions to the
draft.  Not only does no one else seem interested in these "use models",
constraints, etc., but such things appear in no other PKIX documents either.
Is it, perhaps, a fair observation that "rough consensus" is not on your
side with respect to this topic?  In fact, it seems to me that "rough
consensus" is rather on the other side, and so is "running code", which
suggests to me that we're done (i.e., this document can be submitted to IESG
as-is).

> With that said I am off to rewrite the opening paragraphs of the draft - I
> will post them shortly!
 
The first couple of sentences of your posting go as follows:  "I figure this
will start several small brush fires and that is not my intent. So I
apologize to the group at the outset ...".  Regardless of the merits of your
proposed text, I think it's safe to say that the absolute *last* thing this
document needs at this point is new opening paragraphs that "start several
small brush fires".

Let's submit the -10.txt version to IESG.  There will be lots of time to
revise the opening paragraphs (if the group really feels this is necessary!)
in the future when we try to progress from Proposed to Draft.  Furthermore,
it has been suggested in the past that you write a separate Internet Draft
describing the "use models", constraints, etc., that you feel are an
important addition to this specification.  I whole-heartedly support this:
let this separate document be debated and advanced (according to rough
consensus) on its own, and let the protocol specification progress now.

Carlisle.