[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-v6ops-6to4-security-02.txt
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Do you think that this document is ready for WG last call for
> informational, then?
I think it's pretty much ready. (There are two TBD's, but those can be
filled in/removed later, and are not crucial; I also need to make a few
minor ID-nits -type corrections, but those can be done later.)
...
As for the other perspective into this..
One potential problem may be that it isn't formally a WG document (at
least yet). The question was asked in a session a couple of IETF's back,
but there was pushback then (IIRC -- I think it was because there was
belief that we couldn't really secure 6to4 -- and the focus has now been
on documenting the issues rather than making it bulletproof), but then
again, the document has also evolved since then.
Looking at RFC2418, there seems to be no strict guideline for something
like this. It seems that any document the WG is working on and touches
its area of expertise could be last-called and even sent to the IESG -- no
need to have it formally approved. But the practice seems to be
different. So, the options would seem like:
1) get WG feedback whether it could be accepted as a WG document,
2) announce a WG last-call, and/or
3) send it to the IESG (after possible modifications).
in any possible order (e.g. I could send it to the IESG as an individual
submission, and in turn, it would likely be pushed here for Expert review,
for which a last-call -like process would be necessary) -- but 1-2-3 or
1+2 concurrently and then 3 would seem the most natural approach to me.
Seems a bit confusing, but maybe something like 1+2 would seem
appropriate.
Getting some action kickstarted before the next IETF, at least, would be
excellent and might reduce the WG load then.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings