----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 11:30 AM > > Hiya, > > On 07/12/15 11:23, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > I think there's a piece of backstory here I'm not getting.... > > > > Den 04. des. 2015 18:05, skrev The IESG: > >> The protocols in scope are Secure Shell (SSH), DNSSEC, PKIX, CMS, XML > >> Digital Signatures and potentially Kerberos and JSON. > > > > Why is TLS not included? > > > > It seems likely that the answer is one of: > > > > 1) TLS is already up-to-date in the space this group is limited to > > 2) TLS work is being done in the TLS working group > > The latter, and a bit of the former:-) There is also an active SSH list (albeit only about 5 message p.d. lately which would barely be noticed on the TLS list:-( and Simon has posted a message to the curdle list identifying some of that work; and you yourself have posted to it so you know about it! Conversely, I do not see most of those active on the SSH yet taking part in curdle (nor do I see any mention of curdle on the SSH list). Setting up this WG to look at SSH would seem divisive and unlikely to gain any meaningful momentum. I do think that the Security Area should be reaching out far more to other areas to pro-actively provide guidance but do not think that this proposal has got it quite right. Tom Petch > > > > In both cases, it would be nice to say so in the charter. > > The charter text tries to do that generically but does mention > TLS specifically in this bit: > > "Where there is an IETF working group or area group with expertise in > a relevant topic the CURDLE working group will defer to the > consensus of the more specific working group as to where work will > be done. For example, the TLS, OpenPGP and IPSECME WGs are actively > considering some of these topics. " > > Cheers, > S. > > > > >