Hi Rene, I think you are not correctly understanding my discuss. This is a discuss on the failures in following IETF process that has occurred for this document.
From my perspective there is no question that the current draft put in front of IESG is not within the chartered scope for the LWIG WG. It attempts to register a new, not before existing COSE algorithms. That is clearly specification work, something LWIG is not chartered to do. It is good that you gotten some feedback on the draft. However, I am convinced more feedback would have been provided had this work been done in a more appropriate venue. I would also note that the email from John Mattsson that you quote below also do indicate issues with coordination with COSE WG for example. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/PHKTq30QucdjdtAfqsYqqbVep4A/ To be clear, I have no interest in killing your document, simply ensure that IETF process is followed correctly to enable that your document can eventually published. From my perspective, what is most important to you and the WG proponents, define the new algorithms or describe how you implement existing algorithms with this transform methodlogy? If it is the first then I think moving this document to another WG where defining new algorithms are in scope. If it is the later, then you and the WG have to strip down the document to not define new algorithms, only how they can be implemented. On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 10:50 -0500, Rene Struik wrote: > Hi Magnus: > > I don't think a brief glimpse at 00 document does this document or my efforts > on this justice ("my brief review of the 00"). However, let me walk you > through this draft document. Perhaps, this helps in appreciating it better. Let me attempt to clarify what my I see as my role as AD are in the document approval process are. I review documents to find where my expertise and experience of IETF may find significant issues that has gone unnoticed so far. This particular week we have 11 documents (407 pages in total) and two charters to review. I at least don't read the documents in detail. I skim a lot to find those documents and parts of documents where I need to understand. Simply so that I can determine if there are any issue. For your document I am not a subject matter expert. To me it was sufficent to briefly look at the document to understand on a high level what the document does. That high level understanding was sufficient to see that there was an process issue here due to the scope of the document and the scope the WG's charter defines. I have after that initial realization tried to understand a bit how we ended up with this situation. As I said this scope issues should have been detected and handled much earlier. That is why I briefly looked at -00 and -04, where the later is the point where this document definitely had crossed the line for LWIG's charter scope. The fact that the document contained IANA considerations for crypto algorithms was all I needed to make that determination. It is an organizational failure in my view that this scope issue was not address already in 2019. So can we please focus on what is important to resolve the situation, i.e. which path should be taken here. Cheers Magnus Westerlund
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
