IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] [saag] SECDISPATCH WG Summary from IETF 104

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 26 March 2019 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18B91202FB; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 02:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38UYodrzwFvD; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 02:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7038D1202B6; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 02:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:68:d5b0:7d49:45f1:6ec]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5198E1F45B; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:58:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 06A052854; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:58:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: saag@ietf.org, "secdispatch@ietf.org" <secdispatch@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <09DE178A-4EE2-43D2-9099-562E3030EF32@akamai.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3308493@marchand> <2a05beca-e41a-fbe8-835b-dfef9fa88432@openca.org> <09DE178A-4EE2-43D2-9099-562E3030EF32@akamai.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> message dated "Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:35:54 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:58:30 +0100
Message-ID: <6924.1553594310@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/cWMi0OT9KqCkLxCXPXw8kiWGYY0>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [saag] SECDISPATCH WG Summary from IETF 104
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:58:45 -0000

Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
    >> I noticed at the last dispatch that there has been no humming to get
    >> the
    >     feeling of the room

    > Good point, thanks for raising the issue. We also missed "to be
    > confirmed on the list."  Whatever the rules are going to be, they
    > should be explicit.

Which list? :-)
no, seriously.  I think that each propsal needs some CCs to other lists.

Also, I would have thought that the virtual interim meeting results would
have been included in that summary email as well.

I'd like to see a paragraph for each proposal explaining why other options
(including "not relevant to IETF", or also, "conflicts with existing work")
are less relevant.  As such each really needs it's own thread.
Yes, that is more work... "many hands" comes to mind.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email