Re: [sacm] SACM - consensus on defining SACM terminology in a separate document

On Aug 6, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Adam Montville <Adam.Montville@cisecurity.org> wrote:

> As a contributor, I believe a separate document is a good idea.
> 
> As a chair, if we achieve rough consensus on this issue, we have someone who is willing to be the author/maintainer of the document - not sure if that matters to anyone's decision-making process, but at least we know the document would be supported.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sacm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sacm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:58 AM
>> To: sacm@ietf.org
>> Subject: [sacm] SACM - consensus on defining SACM terminology in a
>> separate document
>> 
>> At the SACM WG meeting at IETF-87 the participants in the room did not raise
>> any objection to the proposal to separate the terminology section from
>> draft-waltermire-sacm-use-cases and make of it a separate document that
>> defines the SACM terms in one place and can be referred by all other SACM
>> documents. We are asking the WG to confirm this consensus on the mail list.
>> Please send all comments, questions and concerns to the SACM WG mail list
>> before 8/15.
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Adam and Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sacm mailing list
>> sacm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm
>> 
>> ...
> 
> . . .
> _______________________________________________
> sacm mailing list
> sacm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm

Can we set up some type of wiki that might allow multiple folks simultaneous editing so that people working on the various drafts that would depend on this (use-cases, arch, requirements) can all work unimpeded?

I know that it's crazy to suggest such collaborative technology, but we can convert the content into an RFC at the appropriate time.  Thoughts?

But yes, it should be a separate document.

--
Chris Inacio
inacio@cert.org