Jonne,
On 2007-07-24 01:10, Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) wrote:
Hi,
I just happened to read this mail today. I don't remember seeing such a mail
during previous nomcom rounds (they might have come, but I just didn't
notice them).
You didn't notice them :-)
Also these descriptions have evolved from year to year
(there is a version in the IESG wiki too, at
http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/AreasDescription,
maybe the IESG should bring it up to date...)
I think this is a very good overview of the requirements
needed for the IESG positions and gives a nice background to think about the
people who would fit the positions.
However, I think one of the areas is described a bit too much in detail and
perhaps give a wrong impression about the job. The following extract is from
the Security Area:
Specific expertise required for a Security AD includes strong knowledge
of IETF security protocols. To complement Tim Polk, the person selected
as Security AD should have a working understanding of Kerberos, GSS-API,
SASL, and how these relate to security protocols and to their use in
applications and other security protocols. A basic understanding of
IPsec, IKE, TLS, PKI would also be useful.
I'm sure this is an oversight, but I think it is generally not according the
IETF process to specific technologies and "hard coding" the division of work
in an area. To my understanding, the Ads in an area are free to divide the
work between themselves as they wish according their strengths. So, if the a
possible new security AD would not be interested to look at these
technologies, perhaps Tim would look at them - according the new division of
work in the area.
If you look at the description for the O&M area you will also surely find it
very specific to half the area. I think it's realistic to do this. I don't
object to it.
In addition, I think it is a bit shaky to mention the current AD in this
context even when the person is not up.
My personal taste would also be not to mention the co-AD by name.
Theoretically (I don't know if this
has ever happened outside the creation of the RAI area), that AD could be
moved to the IAB or another position in the IESG. So, it is not 100% sure
that Tim would be continuing as the other security AD though probable.
True, but that would then invoke the mid-term replacement process
for the person being moved - and it *has* happened.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf