Hi folks-
In Chicago we discussed adopting the above-named draft as a wg doc for
milestone #2. There was a small amount of support and no objections. I
think folks aren’t that interested in milestone #2 but it does create
a useful tool for guiding TAPS implementations. This is a call for
discussion pro or con on TAPS adopting this draft. Relevant excerpt
from the Chicago minutes below.
—aaron
____
2.2 draft-gjessing-taps-minset-04 , Stein Gjessing
* Call for adoption
* Aaron: call for hands of people who read the draft
* 2 raised hands
* Gorry: read the draft. Document seems as it should be. Not
controversial. If the WG want a document in this space then it should be
adopted.
* Tommy Pauly: Agree with that. Certain parts in the discussion area
that we should have more discussion on; word-smithing needed. A good
thing to adopt: it has the right core in it.
* Aaron: anybody from remote has a say on this?
* Brian Trammell: "Yeah, do it."
* Hannes Tschofenig: one question on scope, Are you trying to cover
security layer into account? Shouldn't this cover security? for IoT any
API document includes guidance for DTLS would be useful.
* Aaron: Tried to get someone from security directorate to
participate, but no one did, so we stuck with the stuff we knew. Would
be useful to have an equivalent of TAPS that handled security stuff
* Tommy: Any practical API guidance will need to include security.
Can't leave it out. Is it possible to have another draft in TAPS that is
the minset of security features
* Aaron: might be a charter scope change, but might be entirely
appropriate
* Tommy: would try a draft with min-set format to include security
features.
* Aaron: Hannes would you be interested in this? yes. lets talk about
it in the next meeting.
* Gorry: Originally security was in-scope. would be cool to look at
such draft._______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
