Hi Brian, On 7/24/07 2:29 AM, "ext Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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...) You mean there is e-mail in my inbox I haven't read? ;) > > >> 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. I think the O&M area(s) is a bit different. Here there are three specific technologies mentioned whereas in O&M area there are two quite different areas. There is perhaps not a such a clear division of task (like there isn't in other areas either). However, like I said this is most probably just an oversight. > >> 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. Cheers, Jonne. > > Brian -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Siemens Networks Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf