Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work

From: "Lubashev, Igor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:18:15 +0000

Dmitri, during the last IETF in Singapore, a significant number of people who are active in the WG raised their hands that they would think about and discuss security and privacy implications, once the draft is updated to reflect the WG's request to make this a negotiable extension.  I believe Mark meant that the adoption call would make sense once this discussion happens (assuming nothing unsolvable comes out of it). We are working to get the draft in a good shape within a week or so to share with the WG.

- Igor

-------- Original message --------
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: 1/9/20 9:02 AM (GMT-05:00)

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:16:45AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > On 13 Dec 2019, at 3:14 am, Lubashev, Igor <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > We were planning to present the draft of lossbits as a negotiated
> > extension in Zurich, but given that the time for the inclusion
> > in the Charter is now, we can get the draft out next week.
> > Given the prior discussion and expressed willingness of at
> > least a part of the WG to work on this, would you include
> > that extension draft in the WG adoption call prior to the
> > charter update?  (As usual, adoption != publication, which is
> > subject to the deliberations of the WG, including a positive
> > privacy/security analysis.)
>
> If we performed a Call for Adoption now, I strongly suspect it
> would fail, because the privacy and security evaluation hasn't
> been performed; we went through the same process for the spin bit.

What is the security evaluation process?  Can just anyone do it
(for example, myself sitting down and thinking about it really
hard) or are there designated IETF people or entities that do
this sort of thing?

  - Dmitri.