[Secdispatch] Re: [Alldispatch] IETF-Wide Dispatch – Call for topics

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi ALLDISPATCH chairs,

> On 2024-05-31, at 04:12, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Please, take a look at the following SecDispatch Wiki for more information about what we are looking for when you submit your request: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/secdispatch

I’m not sure that I have included all items from this list in the original request [1] and the ensuing discussion.

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alldispatch/OIecq3rv9HJA-SFC66d6bF6iUyE

So let me briefly do this here:

	• pointers to a draft(s)

[0]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review-00.html

	• pointers to ongoing/prior discussions

See the thread at [1], plus the previous discussion e.g., at [2].

[2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/BENVbgmF0px40GPW-zlA4nHI8So

	• pointers to implementations

The “implementation” is in the draft [0], but there are also workarounds in [1a], [1b], [1c] in the form of common boilerplate:

[1a]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-11#section-8.3-3
[1b]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-07#section-14.4-3
[1c]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-07#section-14.5-3 

	• pointers to any other background materials

One example for why we’d want to involve the designated expert even after IESG review is the registry defined in [2a] (see [2d] for some more technical details, which in turn are refined in [2b] and [2c]).

[2a]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252.html#section-12.2
[2b]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252.html#section-5.4.1
[2c]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252.html#section-5.4.2
[2d]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252.html#section-5.4.6

	• summarizing prior engagement with existing WGs

The most obvious WG is CoRE, but other WGs are also using registries with similar properties (see ACE above).

	• summarizing who would want to advance this work

Chairs and authors from CoRE and ACE

	• desired next steps

Choose a venue to progress [0]

	• desired time for discussion

10 minutes.

Note that the request is specifically for the proposal in [0]; the thread at [1] also contains additional suggestions that do not yet have such full proposals, but might very well merit separate discussion after some further development.

Grüße, Carsten