Subject: [dtn] Core drafts returning to IESG

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:17:41 +0000

Hi,

I have now requested that BPbis, BPsec and TCPclv4 are put on the telechat
agenda for the 3rd of December as returning items. As the documents currently
only have 8 ballot positions we need the rest of the IESG to ballot on the
document so we meet the required for approval. My judgment is that two discusses
are likely resolved but not cleared yet. There might still be minor fixes due to
these or due to new comments and discusses. I hope these will be easy to
resolve. 

I want to be clear that this is not to preempt any discussion the WG want to
have over the latest changes in the document. I do note that the directions for
this have been expressed on the mailing list. So I think it is primarily a
question of how they have been written. 

I would recommend that people do take a look at Ben's discsuss on TCPclv4 and
what the current text says in TCPclv4 as it does impact what security properties
that are achived. 

Secondly, BPbis now indicates that new registrations are Specification required
with an expert review for reasonable assignment. My question to the WG is if
anyone thinks we should have more concrete recommendations to the Expert on what
is acceptable or not. 

Cheers

Magnus

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:32:02 +0000

Hi,

As I have gotten the question:

If you look at page with IESG ballot position, it might appear that there are
two discusses on BPbis:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/ballot/

However, any position where the AD name is within parenthis that ballot position
doesn't count anymore and is only kept for record. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 09:17 +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn