Re: [dtn] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi ,

The last bullet on the section 5.4 is in question here. It says -

  "Verify that any specification produced in the IETF has been made
      available for review by the DTN working group and that any
      specification produced outside of the IETF does not conflict with
      work that is active or already published within the IETF."

I think we can just remove this bullet. All the specifications will go through IETF last call, telechat to pick up the review and conflicts, and the IESG can pick experts for the review if needed in case DTN is not there. Hence no need to imposing an explicit review by the DTN WG.

BR
Zahed

On 2021-07-15, 16:40, "dtn on behalf of Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <dtn-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

    Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: No Objection

    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)

    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc/

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thanks for the new Section 5.4.  I would suggest not referring to the DTN
    working group as a review body, as it might not exist forever.  The guidance
    you publish here should still be valid even after the working group closes.

    My original comments, for posterity:

    I support Francesca's first DISCUSS point.

    Since the shepherd writeup was written earlier this year, six revisions have
    been posted, the IESG has rotated (so the responsible AD in the writeup has
    changed), two authors have been added, two new registries were proposed (the
    writeup claims there are none), and a considerable amount of text has been
    added or changed.  The current writeup thus feels markedly stale; I suggest
    that in such situations, the shepherd should consider updating the writeup so
    that it appears to be more current when it gets to the IESG.

    Appendix B could be simplified a bit:

       Amy Alford of the Johns Hopkins University
       Applied Physics Laboratory contributed useful review and analysis of
       these security contexts.

    _______________________________________________
    dtn mailing list
    dtn@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn