Hi Spencer, On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I imagined we'd circulate polished drafts to SecDispatch or SAAG for review. However, if there is relevant precedent in this sort of cross-area collaboration, it'd make sense to follow that instead. Best, Chris _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
