Subject: Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

From: "Tom Gindin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:12:51 -0500

Todd:

     Responses below.

          Tom Gindin

"todd glassey" <[email-masked]>@mail.imc.org on 11/20/2001
07:33:25 PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   <[email-masked]>, "Tim Polk" <[email-masked]>
cc:   "Stephen Kent" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Polk" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Stephen Kent" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI

(snip)
>
> Steve and I don't decide which specifications to approve based on
> politics.  That is hogwash, and I totally resent that accusation.

But the point is that you have no right to make any decisions on
one protocol versus another. Noting in the charter says so.

> We do
> our best to make the determination a solid engineering decision.

here again man, do you think you are a VP of Engineering and
that you have a limited amount of engineers for your projects???
get a grip - you are a Working Group Chair and I and every
other member of this WG has the right to submit protocols and
get them advanced.

[Tom Gindin] IMHO, you're half right.  Every one of us has the right to
submit protocols (or informational documents), but we do not have the RIGHT
to get them advanced - only considered for advancement.

>
> * Note that commercial considerations are not an issue.  You wrote about
> "the various commercial factions that need their standards advanced." I
> assume they need the standards to be advanced to sell products and obtain
> funding.  That's marketing, not engineering.  I'm sorry, but that isn't
the
> mission of the IETF.

OK - So if you as an employee of Company A, and a WG Chair,  see that
Company B is submitting a new standard and they need a protocol to be
developed in a WG so that others can see its value, but you again as
Company
A's employee see that to be a bad thing for your company - how does that
effect the role of impartiality -

The problem we face here is that whether  we like it or not these standards
have extreme value in a commercial sense so your refusing to embrace or
advance a standard effort may have real civil damages attached to it.

[Tom Gindin] If you have seen real conflicts of interest, you should list
specifications where they seem to have occurred.  If you haven't, you
should not imply that they have.  They are certainly possible, but I for
one haven't seen any.  In any case, which commercial interests do you think
Tim represents?