[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Definition of "trust anchor"
On Jul 5, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Isn't it a bit premature to be wordsmithing the definition of
a TA? IMO that's something we can do after the BoF, after we
get a charter and when we have a protocol spec at WG last call.
(FWIW, I wouldn't personally object much to any of the offered
definitions and would probably quibble with any of them.)
We might be better off keeping the discussion a bit more open/
abstract at this stage,
I don't think it's premature. In fact, I think that a criticism of
"this group can't agree on a definition of Trust Anchor" not only
means that there shouldn't be a working group, but there shouldn't be
a BOF (or shouldn't be a second BOF).
If we find that many people think this is a good idea, but there is
more than one camp, then it means that there perhaps should be more
than one working group, even.
PGP Corporation Tel: +1 (650) 319-9016
3460 West Bayshore Fax: +1 (650) 319-9001
Palo Alto, CA 94303 PGP: ed15 5bdf cd41 adfc 00f3
USA 28b6 52bf 5a46 bc98 e63d