Re: [secdir] ADs and directorates

"Moriarty, Kathleen" <> Wed, 06 March 2013 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C819121F8A55 for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:50:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ekXuhaMPXqOC for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2978621F8AAC for <>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 07:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r26FoUBQ016634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:50:31 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:50:16 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r26FoF97022298; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:50:15 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:50:14 -0500
From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <>
To: Leif Johansson <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:50:13 -0500
Thread-Topic: [secdir] ADs and directorates
Thread-Index: Ac4ZPd3CTwXl1K6ST/mOQ2gY5rPlYwBQ+WSg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [secdir] ADs and directorates
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:50:32 -0000

I've been talking about this with a colleague who is active in transport.  Rather than not have a second AD, I really don't see why they don't use a directorate to fill the gaps in knowledge from the selected candidate (they went through at least 5-6 already).  They are already talking about training on congestion control to prepare more future candidates, so a stop-gap solution seems very reasonable to me.  It will be a lot of work for one AD to run TSV and then without a directorate... in addition to a day job (at least part time).

My .02

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [secdir] ADs and directorates

On 03/04/2013 06:26 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm sure some of you are following the discussion on
> the IETF discuss list about the transport area and
> the difficulty in finding an AD for that. (Thread
> starts at [1]).
> Some people are asking things like "could directorates
> help reduce the time commitment of ADs" and of course
> secdir are the poster-child good directorate (thanks
> again!) so Sean and I would like to get your opinions
> about that, as it might relate to secdir, at the lunch
> next week. (Or via mail if you won't be there.)
> Just as an example, some people are suggesting that
> directorates might take on more of the AD role, so
> for secdir, do you think that's crazy, worth-a-look,
> a really good idea, or something else?
That actually sounds a bit crazy to me. The AD role is mainly
a leadership role which makes it really had to split 20 odd
ways :-)

I would imagine that synchronizing between 2-3 ADs pose enough
of a challenge as it is.
> We're not proposing to actually do anything right
> now, but it'd be good if Sean and I knew what you
> folks think about such suggestions as they relate
> to the security area.
> Your more general thoughts would of course also be
> useful, but are probably better sent to the IETF
> discussion list.
> Thanks,
> S.
> [1]

secdir mailing list