On 1 mar 2009, at 22.21, Dave CROCKER wrote:
In any event, if it something ISOC considers worth making a strategic relationship about, and it is likely to entail Internet technical standards, then it would be strange to have the IETF skip dealing with it.
As Lycy said, we in ISOC BoT do believe "identity management" (without specifying what it is, because we see that being part of the initiative, to be open ended) is very important. As many people have mentioned, IETF and other technical organisations as well as governments and regulators have tried to "define" what it really is. We start to get regulation here and there that we believe is not matching technical reality, so at least more communication is needed. If possible, organisations should coordinate their efforts, individuals should meet and influence each other. Etc.
But, back to the initiative itself....as an example of how ISOC works. We do have open board meetings (including remote participation), and two of the meetings each year is adjacent to the IETF just so IETF people can come. (The third face to face board meeting is adjacent with the ICANN meeting.) At the board meeting, of course various projects that are run is described and discussed. Next board meeting is weekend after the IETF in San Francisco. And you can see minutes as well as agenda for past board meetings on the ISOC BoT corner of the ISOC website:
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/meetings.shtml As part of that, you can find the plan presented in november: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/docs/nov2008/businessplan-budget.pdfSee pages 13, 23-25 etc. Specifically on page 23, you will see regarding this area:
Key 2009 objectives for the success of the program to Manage Trust Relationships include:- Publication of Identity baseline studies, such as:-- a public report based on broad consultation with representations from the Identity technology communities, ISOC members, the IETF, and the IAB (Q2 2009); -- a technical report (Internet Draft) submitted to the IETF describing the current state of identity technologies and any existing dependencies on Internet Protocols (Q2-2009);
[etc]So I do not think IETF should be the slightest worried ISOC is doing something here without coordination. And without visibility to the IETF.
And the more people in IETF is interested on this more "meta-level- work" than bits on the wire, the higher the quality will be of the work ISOC does. Just contact Lucy!
Regards, Patrik
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf