FYI for the benefit of those, who hasn't read it on the SAAG list. Please, don't reply to this email.
This draft is obviously relevant to UTA's charter. So, please, read the document and provide your feedback on SAAG. It would be really helpful to capture the discussed points and clarifications from the recent UTA threads in this security ID. Cheers, Orit. -----Original Message----- From: saag [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:37 AM To: Stephen Kent; saag Subject: Re: [saag] new terminology ID posted Thanks Steve, On 04/01/2014 04:59 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > revised as per SAAG discussion and directions from Stephen Farrell: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kent-opportunistic-security/ Good job. Modulo some wordsmithing, I think this is good enough to go on with. I'd like to AD sponsor this as an informational RFC after we've thrashed about a bit on that wordsmithing, if there seems to be rough consensus for that. Does that sound like a good (enough!) plan to folks? *Please* note I'm asking if this is *good enough* plan not whether the document will be perfect after wordsmithing. Ideally, I'd like to see responses like: a) "go for it, and here are my editorial comments," or, b) "go for it, sorry no time for comments right now" (note: more (a)'s than (b)'s is better, a (b) is useful if you commented before maybe), or, c) "Don't do it, and here's why" with a link to whichever mail in the archive makes your point (its probably there already:-), or, if you really must, d) a mail that succinctly makes a new point as to why to not do this at all. Also: let's try control ourselves and not follow up on everything in nit-picking style, if we do go ahead with this there's time for that when we know where we're headed. If it looks like there're a good set of go-for-it responses and no real showstoppers then I think we could try for letting Steve produce a -01 based on the editorial comments you send to the list (say in the next week or two?) and then do a sorta-LC here and then an IETF LC (so maybe a -02 will be needed before IETF LC, we'll see). Thanks, S. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag > > _______________________________________________ saag mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
