Subject: Re: KeyNote draft available

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:18:51 -0500

I think this document has serious flaws and should be recalled.
	 
	 ...

	 Thus, the document is misleading in its use of the word trust and
	 should either be changed throughout so that "trust" reads
	 authorization (for example) and correcting other logical problems or
	 should not be submitted to the IETF. In any case, it should be
	 recalled as it is.

As a procedural matter, anyone can submit a draft on more or less
anything to the IETF.  Drafts that purport to be from a working group
have a name beginning 'draft-ietf-<wgname>'; these, in general, require
the assent of the chair, which in turn is based on a number of factors,
including the status and direction of the working group.  This
particular draft is 'draft-angelos-spki-keynote-00.txt'; as such, it's
an individual contribution.  Over time, it may or may not become
a working group product; in any event, eventual publication depends
on approval by the IESG.  It's certainly relevent enough to spki
to discuss on this mailing list and/or at IETF meetings.  For now,
it's quite premature to speak of recalling the document; Blaze et al.
are certainly entitled to their own opinions.

			Speaking as the co-chair of spki,

			--Steve Bellovin

---

From: "E. Gerck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:33:55 -0300

Steve Bellovin writes:
 > Ed Gerck wrote:

I agree 100% with your words above but my objection did not intend at
any moment to target or rate the draft's usefullness, relevance or
right to be submitted. Rather, it very specifically actually aimed at
preserving the draft from early dismissal, by observing that a
*single* flaw disallowed the paper's methodology -- which could be
corrected by a preciser technical choice of words. So much was clearly
written.

The draft gives the impression that it calculates trust predicates
-- which would ban the use of boolean logic -- while the draft is
based on boolean logic. Hence, it is not self-consistent and is
misleading in its current form. In fact, it is also not consistent
with the current terminology used in the very work it aims to support
-- SPKI. 

Thus, without any semantic evaluation of it, I suggested that the draft
could be made self-consistent (also in relationship to SPKI, cf other
msgs) if that single flaw would be eliminated.

Thus, my suggestion that the draft be recalled was not a negation of
its submission rights but actually supportive of its right to be
eventually useful.

Cheers,

Ed

______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     [email-masked]
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
    --- Visit the Meta-Certificate Group at http://mcg.org.br ---

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 23:34:54 -0800

I suspect that the term "recalled" is a problem here, when in fact
what I think Ed is asking for is a rapid replacement with a revised
version to cover up the current flawed version with a better version.

This process is not unusual in any case, and perhaps this manner of
speaking about it will diffuse the disagreement;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>From your message Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:33:55 -0300:
}
}Steve Bellovin writes:
} > Ed Gerck wrote:
} >
} > 	 I think this document has serious flaws and should be recalled.
} > 	 
} > 	 ...
} > 
} > 	 Thus, the document is misleading in its use of the word trust and
} > 	 should either be changed throughout so that "trust" reads
} > 	 authorization (for example) and correcting other logical problems or
} > 	 should not be submitted to the IETF. In any case, it should be
} > 	 recalled as it is.
} > 
} > As a procedural matter, anyone can submit a draft on more or less
} > anything to the IETF.  Drafts that purport to be from a working group
} > have a name beginning 'draft-ietf-<wgname>'; these, in general, require
} > the assent of the chair, which in turn is based on a number of factors,
} > including the status and direction of the working group.  This
} > particular draft is 'draft-angelos-spki-keynote-00.txt'; as such, it's
} > an individual contribution.  Over time, it may or may not become
} > a working group product; in any event, eventual publication depends
} > on approval by the IESG.  It's certainly relevent enough to spki
} > to discuss on this mailing list and/or at IETF meetings.  For now,
} > it's quite premature to speak of recalling the document; Blaze et al.
} > are certainly entitled to their own opinions.
} > 
}
}I agree 100% with your words above but my objection did not intend at
}any moment to target or rate the draft's usefullness, relevance or
}right to be submitted. Rather, it very specifically actually aimed at
}preserving the draft from early dismissal, by observing that a
}*single* flaw disallowed the paper's methodology -- which could be
}corrected by a preciser technical choice of words. So much was clearly
}written.
}
}The draft gives the impression that it calculates trust predicates
}-- which would ban the use of boolean logic -- while the draft is
}based on boolean logic. Hence, it is not self-consistent and is
}misleading in its current form. In fact, it is also not consistent
}with the current terminology used in the very work it aims to support
}-- SPKI. 
}
}Thus, without any semantic evaluation of it, I suggested that the draft
}could be made self-consistent (also in relationship to SPKI, cf other
}msgs) if that single flaw would be eliminated.
}
}Thus, my suggestion that the draft be recalled was not a negation of
}its submission rights but actually supportive of its right to be
}eventually useful.
}
}Cheers,
}
}Ed
}
}______________________________________________________________________
}Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                     [email-masked]
}http://novaware.cps.softex.br
}    --- Visit the Meta-Certificate Group at http://mcg.org.br ---
}

---

From: "E. Gerck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:49:04 -0300

> version to cover up the current flawed version with a better version.

Exactly, thanks Einar. I was perhaps clearer in my rejoinders to Steve and
Matt, for example when I mentioned at the end of the msg to Matt:

 That's why -- not to be just a technical criticism but also as a
 fruitful discussion between colleagues -- that I suggested the word
 "authorization" or "authorization management" if you prefer or
 "delegation", which avoid the three problems above and may allow your
 paper to be viewed under a coherent technical light now and in the
 future, also within current SPKI texts.

Further, the same point of rapidly correcting the drafts to avoid an
out of context declaration which leads to a misleading reading was
present in my comments on the msg Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-spki-cert-req-01.txt:

 At 03:17 PM 3/12/98 -0300, E. Gerck wrote:
 > >    The IETF Simple Public Key Infrastructure [SPKI] Working Group is
 > >    tasked with producing a certificate structure and operating procedure
 > >    to meet the needs of the Internet community for trust management in
 > >    as easy, simple and extensible a way as possible.
 > >  
 >
 >To be coherent with the text, and to the other announced texts, the last
 >sentence above should delete the word "trust" and use "authorization"
 >instead. 

to which Carl has already agreed to.

Thank you,

Ed

-- 
    --- Visit the Meta-Certificate Group at http://mcg.org.br ---