Re: [dispatch] dispatching draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime

Hi,

>Well, you missed my point that it might not be the "same people" if we have a mini-WG that has S/MIME in the WG name.
>I would think that we might get a few more security folks from the outset as opposed to getting *additional* input from security
>folks during IETF LC when they do the SecDIR review.  Again, I realize that with Russ as a author, there likely will not be issues.
>But, I still think broader input from the security community isn't a bad thing.

All I care about is making sure that the appropriate people get to review the document. I’ll let others decide what the best way to achieve that is :)

Regards,

Christer

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi,

> As an individual, I have a slight preference for a mini WG as I think that would make it easier for this to get on the radar of security folks before it goes through IETF LC.  The
> whole notion of a mini WG was to provide a lightweight process for work that might be of a bit broader interest than other drafts we have AD sponsored in the past that are of more interest to a narrower group (e.g., 3GPP specific docs).
>
> And, yeah, I know that we likely have the most expert people in IETF working on this, but in the spirit of transparency I don't necessarily think that's the highest priority factor when we determine how to dispatch work items.

While the protocol experts may be in IETF, some major users of the protocols are outside IETF. For example, I got feedback of the –00 version by one of my GSMA colleagues, forwarded it to the author, and it has now been addressed in section 9.1 of the –01 version.

But again, as long as we make sure the appropriate people are made aware of the draft, and will have an opportunity to review it before publication, I have no strong feelings whether it’s done as AD sponsored, within a mini-WG or within an existing WG. Same people :)

Regards,

Christer

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:

>From all the discussions so far, it seems the most logical path for this draft is AD sponsor. If anyone has any strong objections to this draft being AD sponsored, please let us know by Dec 14.

Thanks, Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org<mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch