Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 9/2/16 1:56 PM, Chris Morrow wrote:
> 
> Howdy SIDR peeps,
> (+bonus ops ad)
> 
> Following on the Berlin meeting we were trying to accomplish two
> things:
> 
>   1) get all documents related to sidr protocols into wglc and then
>   publication
> 
>   2) get all documents which are more operationally focused moved
>   along to an ops group (sidr-ops or something akin to that)
> 
> With that in mind there are 8 documents in the publication queue:
>   draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol
>   draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis
> 
> and 11 still in progress. Of the 11 left Sandy and I think they
> roughly break down like:
> 
> Documents which should move to the ops group:
>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover
>   draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases
>   draft-ietf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light - authors notified/queried about this
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying

I think we good good feeback on the draft of a charter, I will start
work on taking this to the IESG, but as some point soon the time will
come to ask for community review of that proposal.

regards
joel

> documents which should finish out in sidr:
>   draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol
>   draft-ietf-sidr-publication
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup - pub request in flight
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation
>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
>   draft-ietf-sidr-slurm - authors recently updated
>   draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions - wglc imminent
> 
> I think if there's no meaningful discussion on change for these
> between now and 9/16/2016 (Sept 16th) we will assume this list is
> correct. For documents in the 'move' list, if progress to publication
> happens 'good!'. For all documents in the 'stays' list:
>   1) we aim to have wglc by Seoul
>   2) publication requests started on as many as possible
> 
> We plan to meet in Seoul, but not in Chicago (Mar 2017) where we
> expect the ops group to exist and meet. We can progress documents in
> SIDR after Seoul, but the WG should close out shortly after the new
> year. (or that's the goal).
> 
> Thoughts?
> -chris
>