Re: Security Considerations, IoT and Everything

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 22/11/16 22:35, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 4:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> On 22/11/16 20:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> Is it time to revise BCP72/RFC3522 to require we also address threats
>>> *from* the protocols to the Internet as a whole?
>> Yes. As Kathleen said please do contribute to the relevant
>> thread [1] on the saag list.
>>
>> S.
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg07514.html
>>
> Thanks - missed this on the SAAG list when it first came out.
> 
> To be honest, this thread/discussion appears a bit moribund:

Yep. I hope though that topics such as this will be raised
and dealt with. I guess it'll be slower than we hoped though.

> it wasn't
> brought up during the SAAG meeting this time AFAICT, it doesn't appear
> to actually be a WG item as of yet, there doesn't appear to be much if
> any discussion on the SAAG list (a quick look doesn't find anything
> since July excepts Stephen's note - and that was all related to
> privacy), and the ID and GIT don't appear to have been updated since
> August.  The version on GIT seems to be only a references update from
> 3522.  It looks like there was maybe a 10 minute - if that - chat about
> this in Berlin.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to have a broader (than SAAG) discussion on this as it
> really reaches further?

I don't care if it's broad or narrow so long as we cover the
ground. If/when folks engage then we'll find the right method
for handling engagement. (Could be on here, on saag or on a
new list - but for now, I think saag is the better option.)

> 
> Mike
> 
> ps - on another note, why doesn't the SAAG have a datatracker page like
> rtgwg?

Saag's not a WG. People suggest it now and then (and others
dislike the idea). Feel free to raise that too (though I'd
far prefer we discuss 3552bis myself.)

Cheers,
S.


> 
> 
> 
>