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

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

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
>