On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:40:46PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > All that said, the above is my strawman that I've just torched. This > > is why we need a draft -- until we have one, we won't know if it's a > > plausible, useful idea or not. In fact, a metadraft -- one that simply > > set out the questions that a concrete proposal should address -- would > > be a worthwhile contribution in its own regard. > > In honor of open source, I'm glad to submit someone else's work as my first > draft: http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/psig/. > > This is an effective working model. I'm sure it would have to be revised to > fit IETF's more democratic operations. This model works if you have closed working groups and no one is allowed to participate without first going through a huge amount of bureaucratic rigamarole, and where someone can't even poke their head into a meeting room without being explicitly invited by the chair. It doesn't work at all in an IETF model which is much more open. So you've done the equivalent of submit Windows source code and assume that it can be ported to a Unix system "left as an exercise to the reader".... care to give a detailed suggestion about *how* it could be revised to work with the IETF's more open procedures, and still be useful in terms of meeting your stated goals? - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf