Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I concur with the other folks who've bemoaned the fact that the security considerations text is less comprehensive than the charter text. Which document in the WG will document the security issues with SPRING generally and which WG documents currently contain the kind of security analysis called for in the charter? (I had a quick look and didn't see anything obvious.) I'm making this a DISCUSS ballot on the assumption that we're better off having the "who's doing the work and where is it?" discussion now and not each time a document gets to the IESG without that work having been done. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
