Re: [saag] [Secdispatch] SECDISPATCH WG Summary from IETF 104

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Secdispatch [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Michael Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:59 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [saag] SECDISPATCH WG Summary from IETF 104
> 
> 
> Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> I noticed at the last dispatch that there has been no humming to get
>     >> the
>     >     feeling of the room
> 
>     > Good point, thanks for raising the issue. We also missed "to be
>     > confirmed on the list."  Whatever the rules are going to be, they
>     > should be explicit.

I strongly concur that we need to be consistent and explicit about the process.  

Across the meetings, we have been inconsistent on when hums are taken vs. summarizing feedback from the mic line -- it has been a judgement call on assessing consensus from the front table.

Where the process has been consistent across meetings is in NOT taking any confirmations to the list.  Dispatch decisions have been a point in time activity during a meeting based on the participants in the room or virtually participating.  The motivation for this approach was to convene a discrete event that provides immediate feedback on next steps to the draft authors.  The charter does allow for the WG "... com[ing] to a prompt resolution of the appropriate disposition of each proposal ... on the mailing list".

> Which list? :-)
> no, seriously.  I think that each propsal needs some CCs to other lists.

I'm not sure what hard rule to apply on a per draft basis for post-dispatch notifications.  However, pre-dispatch, continued coordination with ART dispatch process (and other areas) remains top of mind too.

> Also, I would have thought that the virtual interim meeting results would
> have been included in that summary email as well.

(for SAAG) A pointer to the summary of the virtual interim meeting on 03/05/2019: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/9AfqrecZfFMlMGxSXOo4ENZtrVk

> I'd like to see a paragraph for each proposal explaining why other options
> (including "not relevant to IETF", or also, "conflicts with existing work") are
> less relevant.  As such each really needs it's own thread.
> Yes, that is more work... "many hands" comes to mind.

The summaries are intentionally terse as they are trying to share the results of the dispatch as soon as possible.  More details will ultimately be published in the minutes and ground truth remains in the recording.  I worry on how to deliberate after the dispatch meeting but provide prompt resolution.

Roman

> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>