Chairs,
I'd appreciate if you could consider if the two documents:
draft-richardson-masa-operational-considerations
draft-richardson-registrar-operational-considerationsfit into the ANIMA charter. It is quite possible that the WG is not ready to consider whether or not to adopt them, but prior to that, it would be useful to know if the WG even thinks it can adopt them. The MASA considerations document represents security advice to a manufacturer, clearly what we think is BCP. I would like to see it adopted. Either publish is really quickly with intention to revise (maybe start the -bis ID immediately), or leave it as an Internet-Draft some time, to collect feedback. The Registrar considerations document is as much a profile of ACP as it is a profile of BRSKI, and it does tend to wander into "Design Requirements" in places. I don't appologize for being opinionated here. This document might not fit into ANIMA, or the IETF at all. (Oh, I know that we've published such documents before, but I'm not claiming that was necessarily a good thing) -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
