IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 23 January 2020 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B1A120C0B for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4VZDq-Mndl0r for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2392B120BF4 for <lake@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:18:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6CA38984; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:17:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA52C50; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
cc: "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <28066505-a174-88e0-c39e-ce04075d4f9e@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <28066505-a174-88e0-c39e-ce04075d4f9e@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:18:16 -0500
Message-ID: <10333.1579810696@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/-yQ_o4KAjqKfYOEuP7OcRee6N-k>
Subject: Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:18:20 -0000

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
    > We've been making fairly good and harmonious progress
    > on improving the text in the requirements draft [1] which
    > is great. Our charter calls for us to not publish that
    > as an RFC, so once we think we're ready (which is not
    > today) we'll start a WGLC for the draft to establish
    > whether we've gotten that to a point where we do have
    > rough consensus on requirements.

This sounds great.

    > We'd like to ask the WG how people would like to proceed
    > after that point, not to decide that right now, but
    > mostly to get input and ideas and so we (as chairs) don't
    > surprise anyone after we hopefully declare victory on the
    > requirements in the not-too-distant future.

Good.

(I thought someone should reply so that you'd know your mic was on)

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email