Re: BoF slot applied for...

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

The draft Charter-like statement you append below strikes me as overly
broad and insufficiently crisp.  IMHO, it would be very worthwhile to
try editing the draft before MSP to come up with something more narrowly
scoped and more precisely worded.  After watching IETF WGs for years now,
my experience is very consistent that the most successful WGs have crisp,
clear, narrow, charters so that there is a natural tight focus to the WG
activities.

IMHO,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com
Speaking only for myself

On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 11:35 , Edward Lewis wrote:

> Just to let y'all know, I've applied for a BoF slot in Minneapolis.  I've
> asked for 2 hours and room for 80-100 folks.  Included in the request was
> the following "charter-like" statement that Jakob and I generated.  Note
> that the statement isn't binding - it is a target for comments during the
> BoF - even if the words sound "definitive."
>
>> Secure Internet Key Distribution (SIKED)
>>
>> This effort has a goal of understanding and possibly defining a protocol 
>> or
>> set of practices for supplying public keys to elements of other 
>> protocols.
>> The rationale for this goal is to enable security-enhancements of 
>> existing
>> protocols.  Keying material must be dynamically refreshed to maintain
>> secure states, one of the stumbling blocks in making security work is the
>> distribution and refresh of this material.
>>
>> The general problem of key management is beyond the scope of this effort.
>> For example, the generation and derivation of keys are beyond scope, as
>> well as the encoding of keys, whether raw or in certificates, is beyond 
>> the
>> scope of this effort.  Determing a generic approach to trust is also out 
>> of
>> scope.  The effort is strictly looking at how key distribution can be 
>> made to
>> scale on the Internet.
>>
>> The effort will begin with a few distinct efforts, with the early goal 
>> of a
>> requirements document.  The first actions of the effort are to understand
>> the various protocols that can benefit from a distribution of keys, and 
>> how
>> this interacts with the each protocol as the protocol is currently 
>> defined.
>> In addition, a few proposed approaches will be explored, as well as
>> documentation of limitations on proposed mechanisms.
>>
>> There is no guarantee that there is one and only one approach to key
>> distribution.  There are already divergent approaches and this effort is
>> not going to argue with them.
>>
>> Documents (proposed assignments, not all will be taken up, I believe):
>>> Definitions and Scenarios - Simon
>>> Survey of Applications Using Keys - Wes
>>> Appkey: A DNS-based approach - Jakob
>>> RESCAP-based approach - Keith
>>> DNS Considerations: Lessons Learned in the DNS WGs - Ed
>>> SSH Key Considerations - Rodney
>>
>> Agenda: Introduction, overview of the docs above, and a discussion on
>> refining a charter proposal.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
> Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com
>
> Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.
>