At 9:35 PM +0200 3/2/09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >I find it somewhat interesting that we would perceive the ISOC >>as being responsible to the IETF in this regard. > >Responsible is not the right term. A bit better synchronized would be nice. ISOC has multiple staff members at every IETF, and those folks are very engaged with IETF participants. > > Is the IETF the right >>place to do this work? > >[By 'this' I assume you mean 'work on IdM'] > >I wonder why you think that the work on identity management could not >something the IETF should we focusing on? It could be, but it isn't. We have had a decade of opportunity to take on that focus, and haven't. That should give us a great big clue about whether or not we should be the center of such work. >It would be useful todo an analysis on why the IETF isn't suitable for >dealing with some of the application layer / security work that happen >currently outside the IETF: >* Is it a problem with the persons (lack of knowledge, for example)? >* Is it possible that some folks don't want to wait 5 years till a >specification gets finished? >* Maybe they have problems with our IPR policy? For very good reason, we roll our eyes at various people who come to us to standardize things they are interested in, telling them that we are not the universal SDO hammer for all possible protocol nails. To some of us who have dealt with it over the decade, identity management seems like a tarbaby that the IETF's processes would not be well-usited to deal with. >Would be really interesting to understand these types of things a bit >better. Don't you think so? It can go onto the long list, yes. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf