Leif Johansson <leifj@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I was here when MSFT suddenly announced that a particular draft of
> pkinit was going to get shipped in Active Directory krb and that was
> that. Would we have gotten further down the road of practical interop
> for asymmetric key authn in kerberos had we use the same pattern of
> work as TLS 1.3 did? Maybe we're just better at this now? I doubt it.
> I do know that for every success story there is a case of a WGs killed
> by a big actor who decides it is no longer going to play ball... some
> very recently.
Thank you for bringing up additional places where we have had pain.
> You can lead the horse to water but you can't force it to drink
> but to what extent is flexibility wrt the publication process enabling
> this behaviour?
My preference is the current (unfortunately slow) behaviour.
Among a tightly knit group (like QUIC), I don't think we need any formal
marker. In the ANIMA WG, we have the GRASP protocol, in RFC-editor queue for
500+ days, because of MISREFs. That's a pretty strong formal marker.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
