Re: Draft Charter

[Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: Draft Charter

At 1:21 PM -0700 8/10/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> ... the TAA.
> > - Supporting
> > multiple trust anchor administrators, such as is typical for
> > home
> >  
> > users
> >
> > Why do we believe
> > it is common for a home user to need multiple TA
> > administrators?
>
> I would be happy if we swapped
> "individual" for "home". If needed, we can add
> text such as "For example, they may want their employers and
> their banks to act as trust anchor administrators."

Ah, I see your point. If I can appropriately constrain the impact of what a TAA can do, I can safely let others be TAAs for my machine. That seems right for my home machine, but for a company-owned machine the roles probably are reversed, i.e., the employer is in charge and will allow the employee limited control over TAs.

> > - Supporting
> > devices with limited or no user interface that may or may not have
> > connectivity to the Internet
> >
> > a simple typo fix, but if a deliverable
> > is a TA management protocol, then why do we worry about devices
> > that have no Internet connectivity?
>
> Protocols do not require Internet
> connectivity. End-to-end email is a good example of that.

Good point.  We may want to define protocols that can use staged delivery, even if there is no network involved.  If that's the intent, the bullet could be a bit clearer, e.g., if we want to define protocols that work even if we deliver messages via a USB token from a source to a destination. However, I note that a protocol of that sort is likely to be more complex than one that assumes use of lower layer network protocols, even staged delivery ones.

Steve