IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-taps-01-00: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB49712D874; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:08:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XgxJXBmaNwZd; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB6412D84E; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id x62so11414916ywg.11; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:08:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zG/AroZY8OtBArpPsse5f7FFA/FujoddCP1gBvSj6sg=; b=HY/UOhUKaz5ut0b+xKkp8c3/oXAZMZFfPxvAohnoPElXX+CLOc7PYJyJ/61GJ8BRdP Yz+X5gli2X4Urg8ENNHNj9sxPWuPSPWMl66/0zY1Aj+4lazob8FTKOk/rcRQ2XTssb5F R2JDwh7SuIIG1hJtMeAMYAkf5H9Uv/fgxm+yfZVnEp7r3Iyg3Cu6c3dMUoo1GUyw3tUc uc4u/PJbF9UHk4VmBfiw+3n9P7F1hjzV/brlTe0+e2nfitsw9P19EjS58uc3haV4LuLb NdMPq8dB8VP6wzKwgch2qst/iKa0oeHEbRQUhw/l7AoRGWd12oHVyXVFS2mQX8MD4xxh UvNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zG/AroZY8OtBArpPsse5f7FFA/FujoddCP1gBvSj6sg=; b=WCE3+ebyr2osRNTv5sCFL2KrE5XaycFHVAjrm1/v1Q1hjFG2NyTXiumgT5lzSljCWI hK6v7NDpQ5wKSxb7p4H8XEcdP4BdVOcl3ueUrjrjKzE1t8MQ4++SHdpCbF4p6a45OTX0 GxqTVhTsPgV+YvzD4srn2TjkQhzjRtu1sL5prQxLbrbtyTCuL/qA3SlucsWnEalnm53B mErIASdl6MVFzay0lYd+eOAaYTQc6HmliT3ef8HXrr2ptL0a4+WnXnRTNwuxwJhnTOMq +VEwS7d4ihSJHw8og0nc9gKlcl/wdNzwHYlUYgEHgq/A8rf8lo8K6vT8KDuBYE+kaL7q xxTA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc87EHIgAyYFUgAe2Vq3cACuOZHKaxPpp6IEY7HZrrermFYJ6J8 V396tRCIvPAEJ0L1DyMNs3X+hadPw36VU4V27yc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225NlwHA3N2NaNUT7HUqt8SPszTSPtxSDnyfiPonqNZrqAqOf6b4AORPsKy0cNDFbcvtfPEDCKskwefx7mUdYZo=
X-Received: by 10.37.3.194 with SMTP id 185mr25566042ybd.379.1517515699432; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:08:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.41.69 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:08:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAO8oSXn4QmScO=itwf2hxVOZm1RF_Pa8c6JA4+PZH_A1DFAYgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <151681080944.22669.18174017653662773869.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-dbbuJcuvB_r3EzBrC3sSV0QFyU3OoHyrCRFkoCV9bQGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO8oSXn4QmScO=itwf2hxVOZm1RF_Pa8c6JA4+PZH_A1DFAYgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:08:18 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fKtVc_OG41zjXxJetTx9WEm_86WK9P=CiYu_K21sBf_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Wood <christopherwood07@gmail.com>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, taps-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, taps WG <taps@ietf.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c0110234b32605642c2851"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/WGLnj0zqp_aVDI5b9Lt7AT_DKGY>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-taps-01-00: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 20:08:23 -0000

Hi, Kathleen and EKR,

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Christopher Wood <
christopherwood07@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear TAPsters,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> >> charter-ietf-taps-01-00: No Objection
> >>
> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Since the point of this update is to add security analysis to the
> charter
> >> scope, would it make sense to specify how the WG plans to engage with
> the
> >> security area, as is typically done when there is overlap or coupling
> >> between
> >> work in different WGs? E.g., will the WG be seeking early review from
> the
> >> security area on relevant drafts?
> >
> >
> > Alissa has a reasonable question here. Could you let me know what you're
> > thinking about the best way to interact with the security area for this
> > work?
>
> I imagined we'd circulate polished drafts to SecDispatch or SAAG for
> review. However, if there is relevant precedent in this sort of
> cross-area collaboration, it'd make sense to follow that instead.


Could you let me know if this proposed way of TAPS coordinating with the
security community makes sense to you folks?

If so, I'll add it to the updated TAPS charter.

(I'm not seeing a SecDispatch working group or non-WG mailing list - am I
missing something? :-)

Thanks,

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email