ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [saag] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01.txt> (Opportunistic Security: some protection most of the time) to Informational RFC

2014-07-09 11:15:30
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 7/8/2014 12:03 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 08/07/14 18:54, Joe Touch wrote:
I didn't see the post on the main list, but my view is that this doc
needs to be handled in SAAG. I do not support its moving forward as an
individual draft.

saag is not an area working group, so cannot do that. Its
just not the same setup as with appsawg for example.

That's unfortunate; it would be useful to have this have a home within the
IETF.

It works for apps, it could work for us, but I think that's not
something we're going to deal with in this thread -- start a new
thread?

And I'm not clear what difference that'd make either,
especially since this topic, and, more recently, this draft
have been the subject of significant discussion on the saag
list.


Yes, but there was no "WGLC". Jumping straight to IETF LC seems like an
end-run around this being homed in a WG - any WG - and IMO it ought to be.

Not really:

 - WGLC is two weeks, and IETF LC is two weeks when the I-D was
WGLCed, but for individual submissions the IETF LC is four weeks.
Reviewers have the same amount of time in either case.

 - The security community, through saag, is *clearly* aware of this I-D.

 - There's no WG whose charter this I-D could have fit into.

 - There's no WG whose charter could reasonably have been modified to
fit this I-D.

 - Having a BoF to start a one-document WG would have been a misuse of
resources.

 - The individual submission track exists in part for just this sort of I-D.

 - You yourself are aware of the I-D and, like everyone else, have
four weeks to review.

 - The IESG gets a crack at this I-D as well.

What's the problem?  How has the process been circumvented, in its
letter or spirit?

Nico
--

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>