Re: [Add] [Ext] Updated charter proposal for ADD

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 15, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I understand the interest in a statement such as this, but I don't
> really see a need for it: We have established needs for Security
> Considerations, we have Security ADs who will be checking for proper
> coverage, and we're most likely to include an assigned technical
> advisor from the Security Area when we establish the working group.

At present there are no /IETF/ specifications that talk about trust relationships between hosts and resolvers for DoH or DoT.   So from the IETF perspective, this is a green-field working group charter.   The working group could start out by doing a specification that defines a DHCP option, or an RA option, which could be MTI.  The IESG would have no particular reason to reject this proposal.  This as-yet-to-be-named security advisor might or might not consider this to be a problem.

If you consider it to be the case that the working group should be doing this anyway, then there can’t possibly be any harm in putting this in the charter.  If we put it in the charter, then when the last call comes along, we can point to the charter and say “this isn’t in the charter.”  That seems like a good thing to be able to do, and seems like it would cause no harm if what you are saying is true.

That said, I have not actually heard anybody other than you and Paul object to the new language I proposed, and Paul’s objection appears to be semantic rather than functional.

So where is this pushback coming from?