Subject: RE: What happened to the OCSPv2 draft?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:27:25 -0700

> By my count, that's two messages in a row from you on the theme of 
> "let's kill off the PKIX WG." 

Congratulations, you spotted the hiddern pattern. Actually the wrong 
one. I have been arguing that the group should split off an extensions 
group and close the main group once all the milestones are complete.

> The future of OCSPv2 and its relevance to to the question of the 
> future of this WG is equally silly.

Why is it silly to ask whether the group should continue to progress
a draft when the authors and much of the audience appear to have lost
interest?

> Have you been hanging out with Todd?

I was under the impression that Todd was arguing to take on more work
rather than the reverse.

		Phill

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:30:23 -0400

>group and close the main group once all the milestones are complete.

Extensions can dramatically alter the semantics, functionality, and 
security of a base protocol or data structure. So I don't see the 
justification for having a different WG deal with extensions to 
previously developed PKIX standards. If one believed that was an 
appropriate path, then we should have changed WGs going from v1 
certs, to v2 certs, to v3 certs ...

>a draft when the authors and much of the audience appear to have lost

I didn't suggest that what you said above was a silly question. I 
suggested it was silly to use the question of extensions to OCSP as a 
basis for creating a new WG, consistent with my comments above. I 
agree with your question, i.e., unless there are supporters for an 
ID, it will not progress. If the authors loose interest then other 
authors have to take over, or the ID dies.  No disagreement there.

>I was under the impression that Todd was arguing to take on more work

Todd's most recent effort was directed at removing me as chair of the 
PKIX WG, by persuading someone to take my place, or create a new WG 
for which I was not the chair, or to persuade the IESG or IAB that 
PKIX was broken and needed to be fixed, and then, ultimately, to 
convince the IAB & IESG that the IETF was broken and needed to be 
fixed.

Steve