[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.

	Jon

--
Jon Callas
CTO, CSO
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