[secdir] What and who is SecDir?
Barry Leiba <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 15 April 2011 13:32 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2825E06A9 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.670, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wgr3PJi3SMWJ for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [18.104.22.168]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B227E0692 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so2527260wyb.31 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q3S4Dsrijt/0kGaFxPbvxaKBG6onYXzVzNiWRpN2HpE=; b=QJc8sebhHzKPrUkBgVOHXICf8E+imWr1R8BresbAUwMOeVtcjOsY3/xlcxJFYNeKw8 ipXNeeeEPCWwqZ3FdIoY9jqnnqiVAUqnZzf5GTg3F+5Cup1fuMFsIQ0eQEc3l70z+nEy NiPxph65j4sZ3VuI0Cfd+3nPCA4w68GFHSvBA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=idtmJP/2GXM85SLWsytLAadfsz6CM+GVlqe0ix9yzlw9teoOnY5h366xlsWU3Y3fli LRjeuT1P2+Vwu5PZfEYlvk434ZzCvjyapSPeaRsVx/AzteNy6RIQjgnwoUhyMoEhEk89 53ln2vFG+DHFciau8TtOyrNQKXfBCREszxAzg=
Received: by 10.227.28.94 with SMTP id l30mr2055088wbc.100.1302874356344; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.146.197 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:32:36 -0400
From: Barry Leiba <email@example.com>
To: Nico Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:32:41 -0000
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. 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