IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rsab] draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Tue, 16 April 2024 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsab@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8358C14F75F for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lear.ch
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 P9mqB2pSHM3b for <rsab@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [IPv6:2a00:bd80:aa::2]) (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 4D3A6C14F749 for <rsab@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1713301041; bh=TLa9fSJyxhqzTmBUo3vvVi4sECi1+RbLmTtdQxrHzHs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=ffDPEvoG9dV4fqU1PMJ+5Q0QC5OBa1Q4HySKrNI2ZkNPTXOcGNyFb+0aCydCL5vmq EnRocyW5RxhruIxlveYUCLn0sS2zvh1KpqlDxyQo/CxXpb9fzEF5igIY4+e7KAFo4l BF3CZewyOPoJ0rUT2jbo6WF4gWrPM8PjDzril6dM=
Received: from [192.168.0.99] (77-58-144-232.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.58.144.232]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 43GKvK6O964467 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:57:21 +0200
Message-ID: <8989abaf-8f4c-430e-946e-7d5ec813ff1c@lear.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:57:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: rsab@rfc-editor.org
References: <66258AE8-FEF3-4094-B21C-6CE53D0056E2@icann.org> <A3F4A2F3-8578-4BAA-871E-55B36C16C042@episteme.net> <3812BBD4-F934-449F-B861-C06D9466D8F1@vigilsec.com> <42eaf6eb-511e-4580-ba8b-a902623a7176@lear.ch> <1C915051-739D-494D-B9F0-EBF0F5821DC2@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Autocrypt: addr=lear@lear.ch; keydata= xsBNBFMe1UQBCADdYOS5APDpIpF2ohAxB+nxg1GpAYr8iKwGIb86Wp9NkK5+QwbW9H035clT lpVLciExtN8E3MCTPOIm7aITPlruixAVwlBY3g7U9eRppSw9O2H/7bie2GOnYxqmsw4v1yNZ 9NcMLlD8raY0UcQ5r698c8JD4xUTLqybZXaK2sPeJkxzT+IwupRSQ+vXEvFFGhERQ88zo5Ca Sa1Gw/Rv54oH0Dq2XYkO41rhxQ60BKZLZuQK1d9+1y3I+An3AJeD3AA31fJZD3H8YRKOBgqe ILPILbw1mM7gCtCjfvFCt6AFCwEsjITGx55ceoQ+t5B5XGYJEppMWsIFrwZsfbL+gP31ABEB AAHNGUVsaW90IExlYXIgPGxlYXJAbGVhci5jaD7CwI4EEwECADgCGwMCHgECF4AWIQSY0L2Q Rh2wkqeyYR2HtmtG2dJ6MwUCWxJwMwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgIDAQAKCRCHtmtG2dJ6M8KI B/46pFrJX+4Ockl2fHR303ais9Lyx8jv6mXKKOr8WR0UYcJ0syQrhaaZNG1VV98tYQHHK9F5 y7hH4YCsrr3odZ6zoavnx5X1X/2xw8y732f/irVoOOkYLid9IGPxa2e2nYXCZpde5/yvv3we XVE4mG4dEAD5T8iKS4Hz/3fKGJQ15o79Jv92HgC7RpCt0WaiQ0b6acP3PuwjDJzJzLFZzb7j IiB3izxQESSWE1GNRmoAK/k0gW6kmx1/87tQENrK+3Nn4CJSFQWF6entLnY7UeVm95wbMQkJ evwddDWUO2huDbmZnmxgKXGzSSpuNq7n8ICAOlbt0HfdJAZQfy25bwvezsBNBFMe1UQBCAC0 WV7Ydbv95xYGPhthTdChBIpPtl7JPCV/c6/3iEmvjpfGuFNaK4Macj9le20EA5A1BH7PgLGo HOiPM65NysRpZ96RRVX3TNfLmhGMFr5hPOGNdq+xcGHVutmwPV9U7bKeUNRiPFx3YdEkExdd qV2E8FltT0x2FSKe2xszPPHB6gVtMckX5buI9p1K3fbVhXdvEkcYY/jB0JEJGyhS5aEbct5c HUvDAkT81/YFK5Jfg8RRwu1q1t1YuIJSOWAZQ9J9oUsg6D9RpClU+tIFBoe3iTp1AUfJcypu cGKgLYKtpu/aygcpQONHYkYW5003mPsrajFhReVF5veycMbHs4u5ABEBAAHCwF8EGAECAAkF AlMe1UQCGwwACgkQh7ZrRtnSejOSuQgA27p2rYB7Kh20dym6V8c62pWpBHHTgxr/32zevxHS iXl6xvUCg5T8WUwfUk8OvgDcBErK/blDAMXQzSg3sp450JhR8RnXHXF5Zz2T04X7HnlIVJGw f2CjnwyEAJCqMzaCmI+g3Imvg/8L4nyBFvhlFHDv+kIvMiujyycjPAu7xxKplBs1/IEwmDoA MjneFmawvfeQnwdMhSKK8PjKSuzGU5uUmxj3GBfRqvTM0qpmhMPFOmDhJSmH55HLAky2Mlmq JYXJPt/9EfSEhFiua1M6gLiuNEuPkp+8jcnHQqKr0IeHt8UqcwLt2mGfIyl0FVdF9hvWPjNR zGbgqoT1Di03RQ==
In-Reply-To: <1C915051-739D-494D-B9F0-EBF0F5821DC2@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------y5K3xprD1pv7smexRLPiQlbE"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rsab/kt7h52EcN5KBkpiACZgSka-whPQ>
Subject: Re: [rsab] draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08
X-BeenThere: rsab@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RFC Series Approval Board \(RSAB\)" <rsab.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rsab/>
List-Post: <mailto:rsab@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab>, <mailto:rsab-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:57:34 -0000

Hi Mirja,

See Lars' message.  The key thing is to stick to the process mapped out 
in 9280.  For our internal purposes, we can use a shepherd to move 
things along, but in all other ways we should stick to 9280.

Eliot

On 16.04.2024 22:47, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi Eloit,
>
> I’m not sure I understand your comments below. This process with the shepherd is what we discussed on the RSAB list a couple of weeks ago for our internal process. I will send a further note with some discussed refinements in the next days (as I just came back from holidays) but other than that it’s what I thought be basically already agreed on. Or do you have further concerns about the proposed internal process?
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
>> On 16. Apr 2024, at 20:36, Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Russ,
>>
>> Thanks.  I believe we are at Step 6 of Section 3.2.2 of RFC 9280.  It's fine to have a shepherd for organizational purposes, to see that the process moves forward, but the I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to do steps 2 or 6 below.  At step 4 below, the shepherd needs to share all comments with the RSAB members so that we individually can gauge community response.  We then proceed to steps 7, 8, and 9 in 3.2.2 of RFC 9280, the last of which is step 5 below.  If there are no CONCERNs, we're finished, as per Step 11 in 3.2.2 of 9280.  How about we worry about steps 12 and beyond if that situation arises.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>> On 16.04.2024 20:26, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>> The RSWG has reached consensus on draft-rswg-rfc7990-updates-08.  This is the first document that the RSWG will be sending to the RSAB, so Pete and I would like to understand the process.
>>>
>>> We believe that the process starts with an email to this mail list.  This is step zero.
>>>
>>> Then ...
>>>
>>> 1. The secretariat assigns a shepherd.
>>>
>>> 2. The shepherd makes an initial review.
>>>
>>> 3. The secretariat sends a call for community review for two weeks (or longer if requested by the shepherd).
>>>
>>> 4.  The shepherd will review comments, working with the RSWG and authors to address them.
>>>
>>> 5. RSAB evaluation, with comments or CONCERN being sent to the RWSG list.  Again, the shepherd will review comments or CONCERN, working with the RSWG and authors to address them.
>>>
>>> 6. Shepherd final review to determine whether approval has been achieved.
>>>
>>> 7. If approved, the secretariat inform the RPC, RSWG, and possibly others.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if this summary matches your plan for the first document.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>--
>> RSAB mailing list
>> RSAB@rfc-editor.org
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rsab
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email