+1 IETF RFC's are quoted in Government Policy documents all the time. The issue in STIR is particularly distressing. The regulators are actively asking for help here and I'm convinced the IETF can make a substantial contribution here. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/papers/2013/2013-source-identity.pptx PAWS is a particularly good example of where some policy people are actively and productively participating Providing insight as well as requirements to the protocol development. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:49 AM To: Arturo Servin Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Policy makers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 A minor remark: The IAB had been interacting with different types of government bodies for a longer time. While some of these efforts are not so visible just have a look at the upcoming IETF meeting. There is a BOF about STIR and the problem statement document provides some context to activities that have received attention by the regulatory community. Here is the pointer: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-secure-origin-ps-00 Of course, it would be a bit too much to expect regulators to work on the detailed protocol proposals. We do, however, point them to our work and some of them (either though ISOC or by themselves) will participate at the upcoming IETF meeting. You can easily find many other examples in the IETF, such as ECRIT (emergency services), PAWS (about whitespace database access), or MILE (about security incident information sharing). On the last item we are organizing a workshop on the Friday before the IETF meeting and the topic itself is currently high on the agenda of CyberSecurity activities by various governments. Here is a link to the workshop info: http://siis.realmv6.org/ Ciao Hannes On Jun 21, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > On 6/21/13 2:38 AM, SM wrote: >> At 11:00 20-06-2013, The IAOC wrote: >>> series of events and programs in South America. This would include: >>> >>> - Increasing the IETF Fellows and policy makers from the region >> >> I don't see any policy makers reviewing Internet-Drafts. I don't see >> any policy makers writing IETF RFCs. Policy makers do not usually >> participate in IETF discussions. >> > You haven't and probably won't. But they were invited (IMHO) not to > participate in the IETF to review or write I+D but to know the IETF, > what we do, how we work; and how governments and the IETF can collaborate. > > I think that ISOC should continue with that effort. > > Regards, > as > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJRxGfCAAoJEGhJURNOOiAtfzcH/3jfmv2I9yf5JqUTkxWrzgCC o+a69268JLzSSkqjJ3AoJeQTQpjTAI3FrvlJzJgW8+b5a1W0FFnlIVubSaLVCFqt h1kbtFiQJCzQyra6qBP2eUUX8l26eQg1xwVhgrkIqgYSEfItW93aQt2Rzyodmb7O R7XTdoDy+LwgtG+CL91bABNer4GBAvSlhgiuqpZLSjTmbMYONpbPPUw6xNtm9Nzz S6T4N19po9mTtEMrH27bbiU1QioMoRSvTXuO0DCaYFwksMCyi+Lx8l9vvO0lgl/3 zxoxeaXss43U1YN//JGiKZq5BSIKeGmkvE3jIeFqBL8X8/+cauTXJ/bA0PsEOiI= =XWQ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----