[secdir] ADs and directorates

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 04 March 2013 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0372A21F8D1A for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B9eZMIq4yb5s for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145BB21F8D14 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CECBE70 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:26:32 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5TCHrkne+I4g for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:26:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:4179:befb:7c4a:b956] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:4179:befb:7c4a:b956]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32A80BE6F for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:26:32 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <5134D949.4090206@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:26:33 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [secdir] ADs and directorates
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:27:00 -0000

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?

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] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77418.html