Re: [saag] SECDISPATCH WG Summary from IETF 104

Dear Saag,

I noticed at the last dispatch that there has been no humming to get the 
feeling of the room - all recommendation were given by the chairs as 
there was no "voting" (humming) for the different options for the future 
of the (at lest for the {3-6}) proposals. Since this seemed a bit 
strange to me, I wanted to ask if this is representative of how 
SecDispatch will operate from now on.

Do not get me wrong, I think this might be a better approach other than 
asking the room about what to do since most of the times people would 
not read the drafts and still vote to adopt it or not (which I find 
quite disrespectful for the work the people put in - at least that 
happened in the past).

Please let me know if this represents a change in the way secdispatch is 
handled or ... ? And if this is the case, wouldn't it be more efficient 
to do this via e-mail if there is no feedback that is taken in 
consideration during the session ?

Thanks,
Max

On 3/25/19 8:13 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> The SECDISPATCH WG met on Tuesday afternoon.  The agenda items were dispatched as follows:
>
> (1) draft-mccain-keylist -- continue discussion on IETF OpenPGP mailing list (openpgp@ietf.org) to grow interest
>
> (2) draft-rundgren-json-canonicalization-scheme -- not security area work; bring to ART
>
> (3) draft-schinazi-masque -- needs more discussion; non-WG IETF mailing list will be created
>
> (4) draft-gont-predictable-numeric-ids -- ADs will follow-up work to define right venue
>
> (5) draft-birkholz-core-coid -- BOF recommended
>       
> (6) draft-raza-ace-cbor-certificates -- BOF recommended
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag