Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify IETF liaison #80

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 2, 2022
Merged

Clarify IETF liaison #80

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 2, 2022

Conversation

brentzundel
Copy link
Member

@brentzundel brentzundel commented Feb 23, 2022

fixes #52
Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel brent.zundel@gmail.com


Preview | Diff

index.html Outdated
<dd>
To coordinate broad horizontal reviews on the output of the Working Group among the security working groups at IETF.
</dd>
<dt><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/secdir/about/">Internet Engineering Task Force Security Area Advisory Group</a> </dt>
Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny Feb 25, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The removed <dd> is problematic. The SAAG won't do broad horizontal reviews, will it @samuelweiler? The reason the SAD was in there before was to tell us "Oh, you want X... then you need to talk with Y." Will the SAAG do that for us now (I'm not familiar w/ them)?

I guess the question is -- who is going to tell us "If you want that sort of review, you need to go /over there/."?

Copy link

@selfissued selfissued left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To my knowledge, neither the IESG nor SAAG have formal liaison relationships, so it doesn't make sense to include them here. Please remove them.

That said, when we think we're ready, I'm great with informally asking either or both if they'd be willing to do a friendly review, possibly assisted by Mark Nottingham, who had expressed interest in helping in the past.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Mar 1, 2022

@mnot, what would be the best way to say "We would like to work with the 'Security People' at IETF when it comes to reviewing, or suggesting who should review, the normative output for this W3C Working Group?".

This is what's in the charter right now under the Liasons section (I added the liaisons after speaking with you months ago about what to do):

Internet Engineering Task Force Security Area Directorate
To coordinate broad horizontal reviews on the output of the Working Group among the security working groups at IETF.
Internet Engineering Task Force Crypto Forum Research Group
To perform broad horizontal reviews on the output of the Working Group and to ensure that new pairing-based and post-quantum cryptographic algorithms and parameters can be integrated into the Data Integrity ecosystem.

@samuelweiler wanted us to replace the SAD with the SAAG. @selfissued is saying don't list the liaison relationship at all.

Help, please.

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Mar 1, 2022

Perhaps it's best to say something a bit more fuzzy, like:

Internet Engineering Task Force
The Working Group will seek security review from the IETF, coordinated through the Liaison

Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel <brent.zundel@gmail.com>
@brentzundel
Copy link
Member Author

@selfissued @msporny @samuelweiler
I have revised the PR according to the suggestions from @mnot, please review

Copy link

@selfissued selfissued left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine now - thanks

Copy link
Member

@msporny msporny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine w/ being less precise.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Mar 2, 2022

@samuelweiler, this PR (and the linked issue) is an answer to your comment; are you o.k. with this, so that we can merge this PR and close the corresponding issue?

@brentzundel brentzundel merged commit 47d5020 into w3c:main Mar 2, 2022
@brentzundel
Copy link
Member Author

Merging this PR in accordance with our current working mode. If further changes are desired, we can track those in the related issue #52

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

clarify IETF liaison
7 participants