Re: Issue with the requirements document: PKIX-centric terminology

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Steve,

Let me try short-circuit a possible something here.

I'm getting the impression that a lot of your argument is
really directed to the goal of having the putative TAM
work be added to the PKIX WG charter rather that be the
subject of a new WG. (IMO not at all an unreasonable
p-o-v, but neither is it definitively the best plan.)

While that's basically the IESG's call, I think it may be
easier to make progress on this list between now and
Vancouver if we can get that card on the table (or else
discover that I'm reading a tad too much into what you've
been saying:-)

So - is that what you believe or am I wrong? If I'm wrong,
do you think that a new WG is most likely the way to
go? (I take it from the attention you're paying that you
do see value in the basic idea being progressed in some
shape or form.)

S.

PS: I personally don't mind either way, other than having
a slight bias towards shorter-lived WGs in general and the
perhaps naive idea that the putative TAM WG could be a
fine example of such.