Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 02 February 2012 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE9E21F841E for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2fawXFlpygMS for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0E721F84CE for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so1235163yen.31 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:18:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=bjnjCzPmoBRhTiO0WvAi5tNRansi/ktNtFGaHfPC+F4=; b=Zvow8GQblae+XTAQ3s4aoygnI3ljVM2twzl6QsgCfyW6BXhVpFGQGhV80Ay1VNK+aA 1fICsyW66CCQeWNJ9tQL2i4v92biwruFQsbVUxbrJ9NSGtiA9gFBsVHJauZgWUsiiHl4 ustk7sV/AHK7kro1e+fY1bwmNzmuJCMygWVvo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.124.69 with SMTP id w45mr4427357yhh.57.1328192315968; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.146.136.20 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:18:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F2A11E7.10409@mail-abuse.org>
References: <4F28DBB7.5070101@qualcomm.com> <4F29E395.3020100@mail-abuse.org> <5905d04c-42eb-42f0-b580-1fb654cfe5af@email.android.com> <4F2A11E7.10409@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:18:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ulgyfb5g4JT9SY6PWJyy1VXK0uw
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDPHDN6jfJ8xPPDQjfYuQHwuOvAoa4JiyfrKz5HwkURYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf300e54152fce8a04b7fbdfdd"
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:18:36 -0000

> Perhaps express this as requirement to establish a realistic Security
Consideration section.

Regardless of what we put in the charter, reviewing the security
considerations and considering revising them appropriately is clearly an
in-scope -- I might even say *required* -- activity.  It will be up to the
chairs to ensure that happens and to manage the discussion.  It will be one
responsibility of the participants to come to consensus on it, and to
accept when the consensus is against them, and move on.

Barry