Hi Tobias,
Many thanks for your review. Please see inline for my thoughts on your
observations.
On 10/1/2007 9:39 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.
The document described an RFC3933 experiment in forming a Study Group
prior to Working Group formation. As such I agree with the authors that
there are no additional specific security considerations as also
discussed in RFC3933.
Aside from the Security Review, I have three comments:
1. editorial comment to section 1:
s/those who have no followed the/ those who have not followed the
We'll fix this in the revision.
2. comment to section 2:
Section 2 states that:
"If at any point...., including after a first or second BoF session, ... the
IESG MAY propose that a Study Group be formed."
This sounds to me like partially conflicting with RFC2418, which clearly
states that an absolute maximum of two BOFs are allowed for a topic.
This would implicate that if a Study Group was formed after the second
BOF, it would have to directly lead to a WG (or be abandoned) as it can
not go back to BOF.
I would propose to change this to that a Study Group may be initiated
after the first BOF but not after the second to prevent this conflict.
(The second BOF is already an extension and we should not add the Study
Group as a second extension to the system. People should be pretty well
prepared at a second BOF to get either a Yes or No -- and if they are not
ready for a decision by then, another second extension may probably also
not help.)
My take is that after the SG it is a WG or nothing. The sponsoring and
other ADs would have the opportunity to observe the SG in progress just
as they would do a BoF and can assess whether to form a WG or not.
With that clarification, does the current wording sound alright?
So, proposal to change the line in section 2 accordingly:
s/including after a first or second BoF session/including after a first
BoF session
I.e. if a first BOF does not lead to the anticipated results (WG: yes/no
decision), the appropriate mechanism for the AD should be to decide
whether s/he wants to use this experiment or run straight with the
second BOF as defined in the process. With the study group the second
BOF could be initiated after the Study Group has concluded if the AD
does not want to go to WG directly without second BOF.
3. comment to section 3:
In section 3 it is described that a study group shall have and run the
same infrastructure identical to a WG.
I would not agree with this suggestion, but think it should be limited
to less than a WG.
It is in fact less than a WG. More specifically, "A Study Group charter
MUST NOT include milestones
relating to development of a protocol specification." was included
to make it less than a WG. The limited lifetime is another constraint.
The other processes are intentionally made similar so as to reuse our
current operational structures.
Does that clarification alleviate this concern?
regards,
Lakshminath
Otherwise it might lead to false impressions, de-facto situations and
also prolong the work of the study group to finally get a "go" for a WG,
as they might consider this an already fully functional "lightweight WG".
Summary:
I believe that this idea of a Study Group is a great idea that will add
a new tool for the AD for the situation that a BOF has not been
satisfactory preparing a WG formation.
However I would suggest to make sure to keep a clear distinction between
a WG and a study group, as they differ dramatically in the regard of
role and acceptance by the IETF community. If they both look similar
this might be misunderstood by people outside or new to the IETF.
Greeting, Tobias
***__________________________________________*
*****Tobias Gondrom*
Head of Open Text Security Team
Director, Product Security
*****Open Text*
Technopark 2
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 20
D-85630 Grasbrunn
Phone: +49 (0) 89 4629-1816
Mobile: +49 (0) 173 5942987
Telefax: +49 (0) 89 4629-33-1816
eMail: mailto:tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)opentext(_dot_)com
Internet: http://www.opentext.com/
Place of Incorporation / Sitz der Gesellschaft: Open Text GmbH,
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 20, 85630 Grasbrunn, Germany | Phone: +49 (0) 89
4629 0 | Fax: +49 (0) 89 4629 1199 | Register Court / Registergericht:
München, Germany | Trade Register Number / HRB: 168364 | VAT ID Number
/USt-ID: DE 114 169 819 | Managing Director / Geschäftsführer: John
Shackleton, Walter Köhler
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf