From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 10:18:31 +0800
To: hallam@w3.org
Subject: Re: Keyed-MD5, and HTTP-NG
In-Reply-To: <9511020101.AA05060@zorch.w3.org>
Message-ID: <199511020123.UAA02652@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



hallam@w3.org writes:
> This appears to have been a problem from both ends. A number of
> people arround here only heard about the IPsec work when it had
> reached the final call phase.

I can't help that. We were very loud about our efforts and I
publicized them wherever I could. I mentioned drafts here on
cypherpunks and elsewhere frequently. We tried to solicit the help of
lots of people in the crypto community. I was begging people for help
with our MD5 and other transforms for months and months. I believe
that lots of people were aware of what was going on and just didn't
take us seriously until the last minute.

> I think this highlights one of the problems with the IETF we need a 
> much broader infrastructure for understanding what progress other 
> groups have made. The time when we can expect to do everything through 
> email alone is past.

I pretty much know whats going on throughout the IETF, although I
don't know all the petty details. I think that its a matter of trying
to remain plugged in and following the announcements of drafts.

> I wish I could persuade more people in the IETF that the Web
> infrastructure could provide a valuable assistance as a
> collaboration tool for their needs. Unfortunately the approach seems
> to be that because there are is a person living at the end of a 2400
> baud modem in vermont who cannot configure his PPP we should all
> continue in the stone age.

There are lots of IETF web pages already.

> We could improve readability of RFCs through using HTML

I truly dislike that idea. I hope that this never comes to pass. Text is
just fine. RFCs are perfectly readable right now. The problem is more
getting people to read them than legibility problems. If anything
would be an improvement it would be postscript, and I oppose that even
though its easy for anyone who wants to to get a postscript interpreter.

> I would like to see a collaboration system where I can present an expert
> with the context of a proposal very rapidly without expecting them to
> read the archives of an entire mailing list.

I would like to see such a thing as well. I would also like to see a
system which permitted perfectly just adjudicaiton of disputes without
need for evidence. Unfortunately, neither is possible.

Perry