Working on draft #2 of the charter and captured these.
_____ From: Stephen Kent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 4:42 PM To: Paul Hoffman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf-trust-anchor@vpnc.org Subject: Re: Draft Charter At 1:21 PM -0700 8/10/07, Paul Hoffman wrote: ... the TAA. - Supporting multiple trust anchor administrators, such as is typical for home users Why do we believe it is common for a home user to need multiple TA administrators? I would be happy if we swapped "individual" for "home". If needed, we can add text such as "For example, they may want their employers and their banks to act as trust anchor administrators." Ah, I see your point. If I can appropriately constrain the impact of what a TAA can do, I can safely let others be TAAs for my machine. That seems right for my home machine, but for a company-owned machine the roles probably are reversed, i.e., the employer is in charge and will allow the employee limited control over TAs. - Supporting devices with limited or no user interface that may or may not have connectivity to the Internet a simple typo fix, but if a deliverable is a TA management protocol, then why do we worry about devices that have no Internet connectivity? Protocols do not require Internet connectivity. End-to-end email is a good example of that. Good point. We may want to define protocols that can use staged delivery, even if there is no network involved. If that's the intent, the bullet could be a bit clearer, e.g., if we want to define protocols that work even if we deliver messages via a USB token from a source to a destination. However, I note that a protocol of that sort is likely to be more complex than one that assumes use of lower layer network protocols, even staged delivery ones. Steve
