[Lake] Re: LAKE proposed charter

[Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marco,

See inline.

Mališa
--
Mališa Vučinić
Research Scientist, Inria
Co-chair, IETF LAKE

> On Sep 30, 2025, at 18:53, Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mališa, Renzo, and all,
> 
> Please see below some comments from my side.
> 
> Best,
> /Marco
> 
> 
> === Scope ===
> 
> * s/post-quantum resistant/quantum-resistant

fixed

> * Why removing the third bullet point about work on status verification of credentials? Sorry if I have missed any previous discussion about it.

We had a presentation of a related item at IETF 115 in November 2022 [1]. However, to my knowledge, no draft was ever submitted and as chairs we have not witnessed any recent discussions on the topic. Unless there is new energy related to that work item, we propose to remove it from the charter.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-lake-ocsp-stapling-for-edhoc-00
> 
> * s/definition of a well-known application profile/definition of well-known application profiles

fixed

> 
>   The document draft-ietf-lake-app-profiles [1] is in fact defining a set of initial, well-known EDHOC application profiles, as first to be added to the new IANA registry "EDHOC Application Profiles".

Thanks for the clarification, the text was referring to the app-profiles document but I see your point.

> === Milestones ===
> 
> * s/post-quantum resistant/quantum-resistant

fixed

> * The milestone about draft-ietf-lake-app-profiles [1] says "as Informational RFC", but it should say "as Proposed Standard".
> 
>   That has been the intended status from the start and it's also consistent with the current text of the second from last paragraph in the "Scope" section:

fixed, thanks!

>   > The working group will also work on a Standard Track means for coordinating the use and discovery of EDHOC application profiles, ...
> 
> * On the last milestone for December 2026, maybe it's better to say "methods" instead of "method", as multiple EDHOC methods might be defined and registered even though by a single document.

adopted, thanks.

> 
> * Also on the last milestone for December 2026, arguably it does not cover the document draft-spm-lake-pqsuites.
> 
>   Since the new second paragraph in the "Scope" section also mentions work on new PQ cipher suites (that this document does carry out), it looks like one more milestone is needed as related to draft-spm-lake-pqsuites.

Do we really want a milestone for each document in the working group? For example, the GREASE document does not have an associated milestone. The work on pqsuites document is covered by the proposed charter, I just didn’t feel it’s necessary to have it listed as another milestone. But happy to be convinced of the contrary!


> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-app-profiles/
> 
> 
> Marco Tiloca
> Ph.D., Senior Researcher
> 
> Phone: [phone]
> 
> RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB
> Box 1263
> 164 29 Kista (Sweden)
> 
> Division: Digital Systems
> Department: Computer Science
> Unit: Cybersecurity
> 
> https://www.ri.se <https://www.ri.se/>
> From: Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 3:55 PM
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Lake] LAKE proposed charter
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> Renzo and I worked on the text of the new LAKE charter, taking into account the discussions we had during and after the IETF 123 meeting in Madrid.
> 
> You can find the proposed text at the following link:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n0SmboQyTO7M3EJrvLGhNMdcqrm5HKgIob7i17jhuVo/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> In comparison to the current charter (-02), non-editorial text is in red. Please come back to us on the list with any feedback regarding the proposed charter. The deadline for feedback is Friday, 3-October-2025, AoE.
> 
> Renzo and Mališa