Re: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?

Stephen Farrell <> Fri, 15 April 2011 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88B7E06B6 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.932
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2FoTcnRA3VH for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B563FE06DB for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBD1171C9A; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:30 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1302874949; bh=Y51dJt18+pOggn nagD8yiKjH2W9tND+270rdzykyXoo=; b=UWe1L8hC4rgujF+e+ma2dlqq54Q4xf cUmNKbKGNvAwcrcgeAIw9rt7u/ocN6AfApMw+aHZa3AEjA3JSNEqIoGxBZ0u1MMp pCiKjXjI3i0teMQ7HHLJ1Dr1lORDw/otX9M7h/BaNN7ny7oP1OXD/eIq70ltT93u U6ucJzx+LeLn6P22aIjcSpXfQZ/8CTr9JHwVZzmdOz8RFaJZjh2t1t71hsPbvHAe Re4poNG+tbr258wN5RHg/FIdul6qq6oHs0kkBUPVJ4iCVly0HrraLlzrA8B4R10n h8epwyORB1EKZUaVwmhMNuhj5f4eMUMafc5KHm199M1chrdOS++91h+g==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id OpAqdlwLxt8A; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F160171C70; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:27 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:27 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?
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: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:42:32 -0000

Nicely put. Only thing I'd add is that for some
discussions it might be useful to move to saag or
ietf-discuss if getting broader input is useful,
since while secdir archives are open, posting is
moderated. I don't think anyone needs permission
for that, but I guess as ADs we should be watching
out for discussions that would be better in a more
open environment.

In this case, it was a pretty quick flurry of
mails that got resolved so that wasn't appropriate.


On 15/04/11 14:32, 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.
> 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.
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list