Subject: No meeting at IETF 63

From: Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:15:21 -0700

There only appears to be one significant issue open for our group  
right now, which surrounds the adoption of new signature algorithms.  
This does not appear to be overly contentious, so we are not planning  
to meet at IETF 63 in Paris.

Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 06:42:49 -0700

> The CFRG does not reply well to requests for review.
> 
> "some other standing committee" roughly translates to this WG.
> 
> I'm not proposing a better solution, just saying that those don't 
> seem to be what we want.

But not just this group, the IPSEC group also spends a lot of its time
on algorithms.

It seems sub-optimal to have several groups doing the same work. It is
even worse when the group has otherwise completed its work. 

The SHA-1 issues are rather different from the normal run of algorithm
requests. I would think that they were exactly the type of thing that
CFRG should be working on.

I agree that CFRG should not be handling vanity crypto requests, but I
don't think that S/MIME should either. I think that the proceedure for
vanity crypto should be that the proposer writes a draft, proposes a set
of identifiers and IANA checks that the identifier assignments are in
line with policy. The result is then issued as an RFC.

It would of course be even better if the IETRF had some designation
other than RFC for items that are clearly statements and not a request
for comments. I would like an UCA series (unchecked crypto algorithm).

		Phill