Re: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?
Tobias Gondrom <email@example.com> Sat, 16 April 2011 18:22 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A102E06EF for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([22.214.171.124]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQmD7CjZiC2I for <email@example.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de (lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de [126.96.36.199]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAA7E0681 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=DDrhFxhszeTheCvAjicYd3SgK3NUcSoe8ARDN7Cz9J6GtWz2drIv1Qkz+GwwcINRKygg5bjWqQo3iFIeoOWu07NivMm1DZlqOzPwi4Q0c8SaMLXcRl0U/JH5pDxujOlh; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:X-Priority:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
Received: (qmail 21689 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2011 20:22:25 +0200
Received: from 94-194-102-93.zone8.bethere.co.uk (HELO seraphim.heaven) (188.8.131.52) by lvps83-169-7-107.dedicated.hosteurope.de with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 16 Apr 2011 20:22:25 +0200
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:22:58 +0100
From: Tobias Gondrom <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20110221 SUSE/3.1.8 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
X-Priority: 4 (Low)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:22:56 -0000
On 04/15/2011 02:32 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Over in the "secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2" > thread, Paul and Nico had this exchange, which I don't want to see > lost in that thread that not everyone will be reading: > > Nico: >>>> "We", secdir, are volunteers. This volunteer would rather avoid wheel >>>> reinvention, and this volunteer, perhaps naively, had hoped others >>>> would agree. Perhaps other volunteers disagree (you do). I >>>> explicitly referred to secdir, not WG chairs, not ADs, nor did I refer >>>> to actual current practice, but rather stated an opinion of what we >>>> ought to do. > Paul: >>> Most people on secdir are here because they are chairs of WGs in the Security >>> Area. Maybe you are thinking of the old secdir model. :-) > Nico: >> Perhaps I don't belong here any longer then? And yes, I'm thinking of >> the old secdir model. When was it abandoned? (We both seem to be out >> of date then regarding secdir practices!) > As I see it -- and the ADs can chime in if they see it differently -- > Nico and Paul are both right. We are volunteers who want to see > security issues in IETF protocols brought up and discussed, and who > are willing to help do that through reviews and discussion. The group > is seeded with the chairs from the sec-area WGs, but it doesn't > comprise those chairs exclusively. And I, at least, wouldn't like it > to. Big +1. ;-) And thank you for mentioning this on the secdir list. And loved the film. ;-) Tobias > For my part, I certainly think, Nico, that you do still belong here. > I'd hate to see people leave this directorate just because they no > longer chair any sec-area WGs. That we don't always agree, as a > group, and that there are sometimes arguments about the > appropriateness of one reviewers comments, from the point of view of > another, is only natural. If those disagreements lead to interesting, > useful discussions (even if they briefly become "arguments", and > sometimes get a bit heated), that's all the better. No part of the > IETF is strife-free. Just so long as we leave the twibills back in > the armory. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir