Re: [saag] PSA: SECDISPATCH Experiment for SAAG in Singapore

SAAG for now as that's what we've used to discuss drafts without a home to date.  If all goes well, we'll settle on a name and set up a list.

Thank you,
Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:07 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there a mailing list or is thing going to use the SAAG mailing list?
>  
> Jim
>  
>  
> From: saag [mailto:saag-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 2:28 PM
> To: saag@ietf.org
> Subject: [saag] PSA: SECDISPATCH Experiment for SAAG in Singapore
>  
> We (Kathleen and EKR) are investigating starting up a DISPATCH-style
> process for SEC (tentatively named SECDISPATCH).
>  
> Rather than just charter it, we're going to try running it once as an
> experiment in Singapore at the end of the SAAG session with Russ
> Housley and Nancy Cam-Winget serving as chairs. If that goes well,
> we'll look into chartering an actual WG for London [0].
>  
> When asking for meeting time, please specify whether you wish to
> present at SAAG or SECDISPATCH. Presentations which are appropriate
> for SAAG are those of general interest, awareness, etc. Proposals for
> new work should be presented at SECDISPATCH
>  
> Thanks,
> -EKR and Kathleen
>  
>  
> [0] Prototype Charter
>  
> Charter for Working Group
>  
> The Security Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals
> for new work in the SEC area and identify, or help create, an
> appropriate venue for the work. Guiding principles for the proposed
> new work include:
>  
> 1. Providing a clear problem statement, motivation and deliverables
> for the proposed new work.
>  
> 2. Ensuring there has been adequate mailing list discussion reflecting
> sufficient interest, individuals have expressed a willingness to
> contribute and there is WG consensus before new work is dispatched.
>  
> 3. Looking for and identifying commonalities and overlap amongst
> published or ongoing protocol work. Such commonalities may indicate
> the possibility of reusing existing protocols or elements thereof
> published by other WGs, or expanding and/or refactoring the scope of
> deliverables in an active WG.
>  
> 4. Protecting the architectural integrity of IETF protocols. Ensuring
> sufficient interest in the new work.
>  
> 5. Ensuring that the new work considers and seeks to improve security
> and privacy.
>  
>  
> Options for handling new work include:
>  
> - Directing the work to an existing WG.
> - Developing a proposal for a BOF.
> - Developing a charter for a new WG.
> - Making recommendations that documents be AD-sponsored (which ADs may
>   or may not choose to follow).
> - By agreement with SEC ADs, processing simple administrative
>   documents (such as code point assignments)
> - Deferring the decision for the new work.
> - Rejecting the new work.
>  
>  
> If the group decides that a particular topic needs to be addressed by
> a new WG, the normal IETF chartering process will be followed,
> including, for instance, IETF-wide review of the proposed
> charter. Proposals for large work efforts SHOULD lead to a BOF where
> the topic can be discussed in front of the entire IETF community. The
> SECDISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work. Specifically,
> SECDISPATCH will always opt to find a location for technical work; the
> only work that SECDISPATCH is not required to delegate (or defer, or
> reject) is administrative work such as IANA actions. Documents
> progressed as AD-sponsored would typically include those that do not
> have general applicability to IETF protocols, but rather are only
> applicable to specific use cases and network deployments, for which
> the scope must be clearly specified.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag