RE: Tin-man charter

["Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith@qwest.com>]

I agree the only thing slower then a committee is SEVERAL different
committees trying to reach a single conclusion.


Donald.Smith@qwest.com GCIA
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xAF00EDCC
I reserve the right to be wrong but don't exercise it too often.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-opsec@psg.com [mailto:owner-opsec@psg.com] On 
> Behalf Of Ross Callon
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:24 AM
> To: gmj@pobox.com; Chris Lonvick
> Cc: opsec@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Tin-man charter
> 
> 
> At 09:46 AM 6/15/2004 -0400, George Jones wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I agree that we should "draw upon" other works -- which to me means
> "consider as inputs and take seriously". I also think that 
> liaison makes
> sense.
> 
> I am a bit worried regarding what is involved in 
> cross-certifying standards.
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> This makes sense to me, particularly if documents related to the other
> efforts can be published as Internet Drafts, or are otherwise 
> available 
> on-line.
> 
> >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.
> 
> I think that large standards groups (including but not 
> limited to the IETF)
> are so good at slowing down work that I think that we should 
> avoid writing
> dependencies or delays into charters. Thus while it makes 
> sense to do this
> work quickly, and it makes sense for its milestone date to be 
> early, I don't
> think that we should wait for it nor write a dependency into 
> the charter.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
>