On 22/11/16 22:35, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 11/22/2016 4:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> On 22/11/16 20:25, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> Is it time to revise BCP72/RFC3522 to require we also address threats >>> *from* the protocols to the Internet as a whole? >> Yes. As Kathleen said please do contribute to the relevant >> thread [1] on the saag list. >> >> S. >> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/msg07514.html >> > Thanks - missed this on the SAAG list when it first came out. > > To be honest, this thread/discussion appears a bit moribund: Yep. I hope though that topics such as this will be raised and dealt with. I guess it'll be slower than we hoped though. > it wasn't > brought up during the SAAG meeting this time AFAICT, it doesn't appear > to actually be a WG item as of yet, there doesn't appear to be much if > any discussion on the SAAG list (a quick look doesn't find anything > since July excepts Stephen's note - and that was all related to > privacy), and the ID and GIT don't appear to have been updated since > August. The version on GIT seems to be only a references update from > 3522. It looks like there was maybe a 10 minute - if that - chat about > this in Berlin. > > Perhaps it's time to have a broader (than SAAG) discussion on this as it > really reaches further? I don't care if it's broad or narrow so long as we cover the ground. If/when folks engage then we'll find the right method for handling engagement. (Could be on here, on saag or on a new list - but for now, I think saag is the better option.) > > Mike > > ps - on another note, why doesn't the SAAG have a datatracker page like > rtgwg? Saag's not a WG. People suggest it now and then (and others dislike the idea). Feel free to raise that too (though I'd far prefer we discuss 3552bis myself.) Cheers, S. > > > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>