IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 10 March 2021 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BD23A0F0F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:54:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 e4WXRNrt375E; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49BFE3A0EFF; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 12AEsAJD018383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:54:15 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:54:10 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, LAMPS <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210310145410.GX56617@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <DM6PR11MB43808FA7D74229A5997965649FBA9@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9D01B155-6BB8-4438-8FAA-149686B69B64@vigilsec.com> <BN7PR11MB254762EDB050588E65B423B2C9869@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <038A4AA3-96A5-4827-BEEB-12B58F49102B@vigilsec.com> <b82901c00c6847fe9a8f420275d74ccc@cert.org> <DM6PR11MB43805BE3FEFD91A5BDD592EF9F939@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <f6b83156ae704d459125bf4157578e86@cert.org> <DM6PR11MB43806CB904AD424D1B925E799F919@DM6PR11MB4380.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <0CC020DD-215E-4B1A-BBB9-F849BE6F3A3C@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0CC020DD-215E-4B1A-BBB9-F849BE6F3A3C@akamai.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/fasH5fhzhjpmYsaCw79yRT4mdlo>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Proposed recharter text
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:54:26 -0000

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:26:36PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I am concerned about having to decide the hybrid/multi-signature issue NOW during the rechartering.  It's way too soon.  I think we need to discuss the approaches in a technical context (i.e., as part of WG discussions).  What's the best way to do that other than put vague words into a charter?

I think we've seen (other) WG charters that include discussion of a topic
to decide on an approach, with need to recharter to actually produce spec
documents on that topic.  Just one option of many, of course...

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email