Re: [Secauth] Closing SecAuth list

Thank you for your messages Yoav and Alexandre.

I have been monitoring this list and the outcomes from each meeting as
well as talking to attendees.  As an observer, I see that people are
not coming together to solve a problem in which there will be support
by the community responsible for the technology (wifi hotspots).  I'm
also seeing resistance to using existing technology and explanations
of what is already being done in the operator community (radius,
etc.).  I am also seeing disconnected threads that bring in SDN and
NFV in the mix for device authentication without thought of how this
might be used or connected into infrastructure and resistance to
suggestions on how to accomplish that (if it is even needed).  The
last problem is very separate from the first in the list, but all gets
mixed up as a term (SecAuth) was put on the collection of things
discussed and confuses things further.  I've also noticed the sporadic
question, "What is SecAuth?" after all of the time spent and
discussions, which shows others are confused on the goal and problem
or set of problems being worked on.

I appreciate the messages asking why the list is being closed.  I
would like to see a clearly defined problem statement with agreed upon
goals and I am not sure we will get there as it stands now since the
conversation goes in circles and mixes the sets of problems even
within a single response.  We have a few people that are actively
participating, but I don't think they all support the work.  I have
noticed several  advising the list, pointing to other solutions in
play to raise awareness of existing options.  I've also gotten some
private notes thanking me for closing the list, so views are mixed
here.

We would be happy to set up a list on a defined scope with willing
participants, but I do think people have to come to agreement on a
narrowed goal or sets of goals.

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> wrote:
> Hi, Kathleen
>
> That's a strange decision IMO. I agree that the scope has not been narrowed
> enough to justify a BoF just yet, but the list does have some activity on
> it, and there does seem to be a problem in there and some people who want
> that problem solved.
>
> Closing the list sends people to either the main IETF list, the SAAG list,
> or to form their own Google group, none of which is IMO better than the
> status quo ante.
>
> I believe that the mailing list at least should remain open for now.
>
> Yoav
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Secauth [mailto:secauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kathleen
> Moriarty
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 1:21 AM
> To: secauth@ietf.org
> Subject: [Secauth] Closing SecAuth list
>
> Hello,
>
> The SecAuth list will be closing.  Those interested to continue to identify
> and narrow the scope of work should get together off-list.
> If a clear problem statement has been defined and has support from the
> necessary communities to do the work, you can check with the Security ADs to
> request a new list, Bof, etc.
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secauth mailing list
> Secauth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secauth
>

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen