Re: [Iotops] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Dear IOTOPS members,

while OPSAWG might be in full support, in this case my recent WGAC 
conclusion was actually on behalf of Alexey and I - the IOTOPS chairs.

Please excuse my hastily barrage of messages (including smaller and 
bigger nits), today.

Viele Grüße,

Henk (as one of the IOTOPS chairs)

On 17.03.23 17:14, Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Dear IOTOPS members,
> 
> this email concludes the call for adoption for 
> draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07. Reflecting previous 
> in-room consensus, there was only positive feedback and notions on 
> active use of the I-D.
> 
> The chairs believe this I-D is appropriate for adoption in the IOTOPS WG 
> (i.e., migrating it from LWIG) and for the working group to work on.
> 
> Authors/editors, please rename the I-D to 
> draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison-00, keeping the content 
> as is, and resubmit.
> 
> 
> For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
> 
> Henk
> 
> On 01.03.23 19:29, Henk Birkholz wrote:
>> Dear IOTOPS members,
>>
>> this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
>>
>> ending on Wednesday, March 15th.
>>
>> As a reminder, this I-D describes experiences with message sizes for 
>> various configurations of security protocols. This can aid in 
>> selecting protocols for specific constrained environments.
>>
>> Previously, the I-D has been progressed in LWIG. There was rough 
>> in-room consensus at the IETF 115 meeting to make IOTOPS its new home 
>> and move forward with a WG adoption call, as is documented in
>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-115-iotops-202211081300/
>>
>> Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments 
>> you may have.
>>
>>
>> For the IOTOPS co-chairs,
>>
>> Henk
>>
>