Subject: [anonsec] BTNS work in pki4ipsec

From: Atul.Sharma at nokia.com ([email-masked])
Date: Fri Nov 19 06:07:19 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of ext Nicolas Williams
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 11:46 PM
> To: Discussions of anonymous Internet security.
> Subject: Re: [anonsec] BTNS work in pki4ipsec
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 04:08:31PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> > That's what I'm talking about - removing this. Is there a 
> way to remove 
> > the issue of robust certificate management? What else?
> 
> Why?  Why can't a WG work on two things which relate only in 
> one way but
> not another?
> 
> Nico

If we extend that argument, PKI4IPSEC work should have been done
under the auspices of IPSEC WG. I can find several such examples.

If you look at the working group listing, PKI4IPSEC is mandated
for "Profiling Use of PKI in IPsec". With that mandate, rolling 
in BTNS work into PKI4IPSEC is not the most natural thing to do.
That means if at all BTNS work has to be done under PKI4IPSEC, the 
latter would need to be rechartered and remandated. Why is that
any better than starting a new working group?

On technical grounds, IMHO, it makes more sense to have a separate
working group. Are there any administrative issues for which it
would be better to do the work under PKI4IPSEC rather than start
a new working group?

Atul