Re: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?
Stephen Farrell <firstname.lastname@example.org> Fri, 15 April 2011 13:42 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88B7E06B6 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R2FoTcnRA3VH for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [18.104.22.168]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B563FE06DB for <email@example.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBD1171C9A; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:30 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; 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 scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id OpAqdlwLxt8A; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [22.214.171.124] (stephen-samy.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [126.96.36.199]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F160171C70; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:27 +0100 (IST)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:27 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:188.8.131.52) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
To: Barry Leiba <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
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: 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. S. 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. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir >