Re: [Standards] [Fwd: WG Action: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp)]
On Thu Jun 4 15:38:14 2009, Joe Hildebrand wrote: My biggest worry with the end-to-end encryption stuff is what happens when you get more than one security person in any given room at the same time... Let's just say they're not known for coming to consensus quickly. I'm not sure what you mean - they're all such mild-mannered, laid back guys... Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] [Fwd: WG Action: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp)]
On 6/3/09 8:00 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > Nothing says that we can't finish things sooner than defined by the > milestones on the charter (I'm not quite sure how those got defined, > because I think we can finish sooner, but Working Group chairs and IETF > Area Directors tend to be conservative about milestones). It was just a conservatism issue. We can certainly feel free to overachieve drastically. My biggest worry with the end-to-end encryption stuff is what happens when you get more than one security person in any given room at the same time... Let's just say they're not known for coming to consensus quickly. -- Joe Hildebrand
Re: [Standards] [Fwd: WG Action: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp)]
Am 04.06.2009 um 10:39 schrieb Dave Cridland: On Thu Jun 4 03:34:45 2009, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: I'm not quite familiar with how such processes at the IETF work, but if my time allows me to, I will look how the process works and help where I can. (Keep in mind I have no PhD in cryptography, my only concern was that we were reinventing the wheel because we already had stuff that even works. I'm fine with another standard than ESessions, but no matter which standard it will be, it needs to get done ASAP. We've been talking about this for over a year already and there's still no standard everybody agreed on, not even to talk about a client implementing it). Thankfully, the IETF works much the same way as the XSF - there's some mailing lists, you join them, you offer (hopefully sensible) opinions, and the resultant specification is intended to reflect the consensus of the "working group" - ie, the people on the mailing list. The "feel" of the working group mailing lists is much the same as this one, although you will end up rubbing shoulders with people who, for instance, have maintained the global email protocols for the past couple of decades. There's no formal membership (at all) in the IETF, although there is, similar to the XSF, a membership organisation called the ISOC (Internet Society), which "holds the keys" as it were, and formalizes the IETF's existence in legal terms. In fact, the only major difference is that there is a fairly length and complex IPR policy. (Which is, as you'll find out if you participate in the IETF, astonishingly difficult to change due to the delights of the legal system). This policy can be boiled down to essentially two phrases for participants: 1) If you "say" anything "in the IETF" - ie, write a post to a mailing list, send a message to one of the MUC chatrooms, physically speak during a meeting - then anyone else can use that for IETF purposes - as in, your words can be used as part of a specification. 2) If you know of, or become aware of, any patents and other ikky stuff, you need to let people know. There's a formal method for doing this, but simply mentioning it on the XMPP WG's mailing list will be enough to trigger the process. This may not mean that the patented method is dropped, although in practise it usually does. Hope this helps, Dave. Thanks for your detailed explaination, this indeed helps. I will join the list :). -- Jonathan PGP.sig Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
Re: [Standards] [Fwd: WG Action: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (xmpp)]
On Thu Jun 4 03:34:45 2009, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: I'm not quite familiar with how such processes at the IETF work, but if my time allows me to, I will look how the process works and help where I can. (Keep in mind I have no PhD in cryptography, my only concern was that we were reinventing the wheel because we already had stuff that even works. I'm fine with another standard than ESessions, but no matter which standard it will be, it needs to get done ASAP. We've been talking about this for over a year already and there's still no standard everybody agreed on, not even to talk about a client implementing it). Thankfully, the IETF works much the same way as the XSF - there's some mailing lists, you join them, you offer (hopefully sensible) opinions, and the resultant specification is intended to reflect the consensus of the "working group" - ie, the people on the mailing list. The "feel" of the working group mailing lists is much the same as this one, although you will end up rubbing shoulders with people who, for instance, have maintained the global email protocols for the past couple of decades. There's no formal membership (at all) in the IETF, although there is, similar to the XSF, a membership organisation called the ISOC (Internet Society), which "holds the keys" as it were, and formalizes the IETF's existence in legal terms. In fact, the only major difference is that there is a fairly length and complex IPR policy. (Which is, as you'll find out if you participate in the IETF, astonishingly difficult to change due to the delights of the legal system). This policy can be boiled down to essentially two phrases for participants: 1) If you "say" anything "in the IETF" - ie, write a post to a mailing list, send a message to one of the MUC chatrooms, physically speak during a meeting - then anyone else can use that for IETF purposes - as in, your words can be used as part of a specification. 2) If you know of, or become aware of, any patents and other ikky stuff, you need to let people know. There's a formal method for doing this, but simply mentioning it on the XMPP WG's mailing list will be enough to trigger the process. This may not mean that the patented method is dropped, although in practise it usually does. Hope this helps, Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
