Subject: [dtn] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:40:40 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the new Section 5.4.  I would suggest not referring to the DTN
working group as a review body, as it might not exist forever.  The guidance
you publish here should still be valid even after the working group closes.

My original comments, for posterity:

I support Francesca's first DISCUSS point.

Since the shepherd writeup was written earlier this year, six revisions have
been posted, the IESG has rotated (so the responsible AD in the writeup has
changed), two authors have been added, two new registries were proposed (the
writeup claims there are none), and a considerable amount of text has been
added or changed.  The current writeup thus feels markedly stale; I suggest
that in such situations, the shepherd should consider updating the writeup so
that it appears to be more current when it gets to the IESG.

Appendix B could be simplified a bit:

   Amy Alford of the Johns Hopkins University
   Applied Physics Laboratory contributed useful review and analysis of
   these security contexts.

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:33:27 +0000

Hi ,

The last bullet on the section 5.4 is in question here. It says -

  "Verify that any specification produced in the IETF has been made
      available for review by the DTN working group and that any
      specification produced outside of the IETF does not conflict with
      work that is active or already published within the IETF."

I think we can just remove this bullet. All the specifications will go through IETF last call, telechat to pick up the review and conflicts, and the IESG can pick experts for the review if needed in case DTN is not there. Hence no need to imposing an explicit review by the DTN WG.

BR
Zahed

On 2021-07-15, 16:40, "dtn on behalf of Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    _______________________________________________
    dtn mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:57:17 -0700

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 8:33 AM Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think we can just remove this bullet. All the specifications will go
> through IETF last call, telechat to pick up the review and conflicts, and
> the IESG can pick experts for the review if needed in case DTN is not
> there. Hence no need to imposing an explicit review by the DTN WG.
>

That works for me.

-MSK