On 22/11/16 22:35, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 11/22/2016 4:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 22/11/16 20:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
Is it time to revise BCP72/RFC3522 to require we also address threats
*from* the protocols to the Internet as a whole?
Yes. As Kathleen said please do contribute to the relevant
thread [1] on the saag list.
S.
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg07514.html
Thanks - missed this on the SAAG list when it first came out.
To be honest, this thread/discussion appears a bit moribund:
Yep. I hope though that topics such as this will be raised
and dealt with. I guess it'll be slower than we hoped though.
it wasn't
brought up during the SAAG meeting this time AFAICT, it doesn't appear
to actually be a WG item as of yet, there doesn't appear to be much if
any discussion on the SAAG list (a quick look doesn't find anything
since July excepts Stephen's note - and that was all related to
privacy), and the ID and GIT don't appear to have been updated since
August. The version on GIT seems to be only a references update from
3522. It looks like there was maybe a 10 minute - if that - chat about
this in Berlin.
Perhaps it's time to have a broader (than SAAG) discussion on this as it
really reaches further?
I don't care if it's broad or narrow so long as we cover the
ground. If/when folks engage then we'll find the right method
for handling engagement. (Could be on here, on saag or on a
new list - but for now, I think saag is the better option.)
Mike
ps - on another note, why doesn't the SAAG have a datatracker page like
rtgwg?
Saag's not a WG. People suggest it now and then (and others
dislike the idea). Feel free to raise that too (though I'd
far prefer we discuss 3552bis myself.)
Cheers,
S.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature