Perhaps it is just me but I find the two assertions implicit/explicit in your messages to be incompatible: 1) That identity is a topic that the IETF has failed to do useful work on in the past 2) That the organizers of the BOF have need of more extensive input from those who have failed to do productive work on the topic before proceding. While learning lessons from past failures is an important part of the design process this does not appear to be the type of input into the procedings that you appear to have in mind. It is reasonable to tell the builders of the new bridge to ask the architects of the old one why it fell down. It is completely unreasonable to tell the builders of the new bridge to ask the architects of the old one how to build the new bridge and wait on their reply. This BOF is not the only initiative underway in this space. The internet is under attack, phishing is a form of identity theft. So working out how to fit theft proof credentials into the Internet infrastructure is an important problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:04 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX) > > > > >>>> My immediate concern is that we know better than to > conduct this > >>>> sort of BOF in this sort of manner. > >>> What sort of manner is that, Dave? > > > > I ask a serious question and I get a sarcastic reply. > That's a great > > way to have a productive conversation. > > 1. You are right. My only excuse is that I felt/feel I had > made two postings that largely already answered your > question, and your query reflected none of that content. So > the sarcasm was a reaction to having to repeat myself. > > See: > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40484.html > and, of course: > <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40496.html>. > > 2. Other than having the opening tone be questionable, the > note very much *did* provide content intended to be strictly > productive. > > > > The proponents of this BOF are following the community's documented > > procedures [1]. What I'm hearing is that there is a > underlying problem > > with the adequacy of those procedures. > > That's a worthy discussion, but my real concerns are the > realities surrounding > this type of BOF for this type of topic. > > In simplistic (but productive and non-sarcastic) terms, I > think things reduce to > the hurdles that an AD can/should impose prior to approving a > BOF. Some topics > warrant higher hurdles. There is ample basis for viewing DIX > as one of them, IMO. > > I think the title of Thomas Narten's draft is particularly > apt, because it > focuses on productivity rather than formal process. > > > d/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > <http://bbiw.net> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf