IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 18 March 2023 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9716C14CE46 for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 02:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HFpqPRe5C7JB for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 02:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 276C7C14CF09 for <Iotops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 02:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [31.31.156.10]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D745F1F4D2 for <Iotops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:40:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 34893A1A73; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 04:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324A2A1A70 for <Iotops@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:11:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IOTOPS Working Group <Iotops@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20fe2d26-3edb-fb64-6e6f-08af72b8a969@sit.fraunhofer.de>
References: <20fe2d26-3edb-fb64-6e6f-08af72b8a969@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> message dated "Wed, 01 Mar 2023 19:29:32 +0100."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:11:28 +0100
Message-ID: <2798810.1679127088@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/l71cf-nM0mbx0UNVOxSceTeKHEU>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison-07
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 09:40:44 -0000

I finally read the document.
It is very very fine work.
It was perhaps started when LAKE chartering was being argued.

I question whether any Conclusion should be included.
I'm uncertain whether there is any value in publishing it as an RFC.
I think there is perhaps more pain than value in the future of this document.
But, I won't object to progressing the document.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email