From: [email-masked] (CIS Majordomo server)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:14:29 -0500 (CDT)

F
From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
To: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>,
         Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: KDC StartTLS vs. FAST Armor analysis
References: <[email-masked]>
	<[email-masked]>
	<[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:070511:[email-masked]::8GUVSrDTo4m4N2xQ:B6a8
X-Hashcash: 1:22:070511:[email-masked]::iVZ3q4I1Vfwmpt06:8kGw
X-Hashcash: 1:22:070511:[email-masked]::pySCU2RKF9SJmv3l:OAtw
X-Hashcash: 1:22:070511:[email-masked]::A9HhRh/weupR8CqB:09uiF
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:01:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> (Sam Hartman's message of "Fri\, 11 May 
2007 09\:51\:12 -0400")
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>     Simon> I thus favor 'both' since it is not even clear that these
>     Simon> technologies are mutually exclusive.  If there is overlap
>     Simon> in some area(s), we need to know which areas, and also
>     Simon> which areas the WG is actually interested in.
>
> <hat role="individual">
>
> I think Nico's comments give us an understanding of where there is
> overlap.  I don't favor a problem statement.  I do favor working on
> both: fast as a standards track RFC and starttls as an experimental
> RFC with the understanding that if fast proves difficult to deploy we
> promote starttls.

The choice of document to select for standards track seems arbitrary to
me.  What made you prefer that approach?

I can understand the preference to avoid the work involved with
producing a problem statement.  (I'm rather confused exactly what
problems people perceive that either of these proposal actually solve,
and doesn't solve, so personally I'd find a problem statement helpful.)

However, if we don't do a problem statement, then I believe it is
important to make it clear that the WG chose one document not based on
objective and written-down technical reasons.

I thought Nico's evaluation is a good starting point for a problem
statement and document comparison analysis.  It needs to be updated
until there is consensus on it, though.  There were several flaws in the
initial writeup, which is normal for a -00 (or even pre -00) attempt.
More importantly, it is not clear which of the metrics used in the
evaluation are important to the WG.  Some may not be important at all,
and there may be others that are important.

/Simon