[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Issue with the requirements document: PKIX-centric terminology
At 7:41 AM -0700 8/10/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
With all due respect to Derek and Mike, they do not represent the
entire OpenPGP- and DNSSEC-using community (and they probably didn't
pretend to in your conversations with them...). Others from the
OpenPGP and DNSSEC communities have already given use cases for TAM.
I am most interested in DNSSEC, where there are obvious political
problems with a single signed root in many operational environments.
It's certainly fair to say that neither Derek nor MIke represent the
entirety of each of these communities, but I do view them as well
informed representatives of these communities.
If folks from these communities make good, concrete arguments about
how this work will relate to their interests, then I agree that we
should try to keep the work broad, and not exclude these other areas.
However, many (most?) of the messages I've seen on this list
discussing broader applicability have been very vague in this
respect. Thus I think we need more specific examples from these other
areas. Also, these examples should be such that they can all be
accommodated by standards that are specific enough to be useful, not
just broad enough so that we can say that we encompass everything.