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

A separate document is goodŠ

A suggestion could be to have the current authors of the Use Cases,
Architecture and Requirements take the initial pen as we'll be updating
the terminology as we evolve the respective drafts tooŠ.

	Nancy.

On 8/6/13 8:20 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