On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/8/2014 12:03 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> On 08/07/14 18:54, Joe Touch wrote: >>> I didn't see the post on the main list, but my view is that this doc >>> needs to be handled in SAAG. I do not support its moving forward as an >>> individual draft. >> >> saag is not an area working group, so cannot do that. Its >> just not the same setup as with appsawg for example. > > That's unfortunate; it would be useful to have this have a home within the > IETF. It works for apps, it could work for us, but I think that's not something we're going to deal with in this thread -- start a new thread? >> And I'm not clear what difference that'd make either, >> especially since this topic, and, more recently, this draft >> have been the subject of significant discussion on the saag >> list. > > > Yes, but there was no "WGLC". Jumping straight to IETF LC seems like an > end-run around this being homed in a WG - any WG - and IMO it ought to be. Not really: - WGLC is two weeks, and IETF LC is two weeks when the I-D was WGLCed, but for individual submissions the IETF LC is four weeks. Reviewers have the same amount of time in either case. - The security community, through saag, is *clearly* aware of this I-D. - There's no WG whose charter this I-D could have fit into. - There's no WG whose charter could reasonably have been modified to fit this I-D. - Having a BoF to start a one-document WG would have been a misuse of resources. - The individual submission track exists in part for just this sort of I-D. - You yourself are aware of the I-D and, like everyone else, have four weeks to review. - The IESG gets a crack at this I-D as well. What's the problem? How has the process been circumvented, in its letter or spirit? Nico --