Dear TAPsters, On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-taps-01-00: No Objection > > 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.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Since the point of this update is to add security analysis to the charter > scope, would it make sense to specify how the WG plans to engage with the > security area, as is typically done when there is overlap or coupling > between > work in different WGs? E.g., will the WG be seeking early review from the > security area on relevant drafts? > Alissa has a reasonable question here. Could you let me know what you're thinking about the best way to interact with the security area for this work? Thanks, Spencer
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
