Re: Tin-man charter

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Chris Lonvick wrote:

> I'd like to suggest that this WG also draw upon the works already created,
> and efforts already underway in other SDOs (Standards Developing
> Organizations).  Specifically ANSI T1.276, the NRIC V "Best Practices",
> ITU-T M.3016 and X.805, the T1S1 effort on securing signalling, and, I'm
> sure, others.  I'd also like to suggest that the WG form liaisons with
> these other SDOs and perhaps attempt to cross-certify standards.  Putting
> on my Cisco hat for a moment, I'd really like for there to be a consistent
> set of product requirements to follow.  I really don't want to see one SDO
> stipulate "security feature X" while another mandates "Y" for the same
> purpose.

Thanks Chris.   Agreed.

> The only Goal/Milestone that I can see coming from that activity would be
> a document (Informational RFC?) citing all of the relevent standards and
> providing a snapshot of the efforts of other SDOs in this area.  If that
> makes sense, I'll volunteer to produce that document, for submission to
> the IESG, within 6 months.


I'm thinking this should almost come before the framework, as a kind
of survey to reduce and frame the work that needs to be done.

Thoughts ?

---George