Re: Potential agenda for SF meeting

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Tom Taylor wrote:
> I figure I can recycle the document incorporating comments received, within the next 
> week.  I will flag the big issue with key disclosure.

Also, I sent some comments on the list about two weeks ago, no replies 
yet.

The biggest thing I'd like to have w.g. discuss is whether cryptographic 
parts of iTrace could be optional in the implementations -- even specified 
separately.

Those seem to have a lot of weight in the spec and make implementing seem 
like a lot more complex task; I'm not sure if the tradeoffs are worth 
that.
 
> Leech, Marcus [CAR:W669:EXCH] wrote:
> > "Leech, Marcus [CAR:W669:EXCH]" wrote:
> > 
> >>I'd like to discuss a couple of things at the upcoming SF meeting:
> >>
> >>  1) Problems with current document, with solutions
> >>       o actual problems
> >>       o ommissions that reduce document clarity
> >>       o stuff that makes implementations a lot harder
> >>
> >>  2) Definitions of public-key data in XML
> >>
> >>I'd like a couple of people to step forward to lead the discussion on these items
> >>  at the meeting.
> >>
> > 
> > So far, Don Eastlake has said he could talk about XML public-key data representations,
> >   but noone has come forward for the other item.  If I don't hear from anybody
> >   by Friday, I *won't* schedule a WG meeting for SF.
> > 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings