Subject: Re: [IPsec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-10-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 16:41:53 +0300

[email-masked] writes:
> Could you respond on the timeline and if you think it's reasonable
> and why or if it should be changed. 

Sure.

Out of the nine documents to be published, there is two which are
already going out from the WG, i.e., which are already submitted for
publication (DDoS and curve25519). Two more are almost ready (4307bis
and 7321bis), and those are updating the MTI requirements, thus there
is not that much of protocol work, we just need to agree what is
suitable level for each algorithm.

This means that four of the documents should be out from the WG hands
before the next IETF, and hopefully published as RFC on first half of
2017...

Then there is EdDSA which is mostly waiting for the curdle-pkix to
agree on the OIDS to be used for the EdDSA, and then it should be
ready soon after that is done (it is 2 page document just saying we do
what draft-irtf-cfrg-eddsa and draft-ietf-curdle-pkix do).

For the rest of the items, we have quite stable drafts for three of
them (tcp-encp, split-dns, and implicit IV), so after we get those
first drafts out, we should get them done during the winter.

Only thing that still requires more work is the quantum resistant
version of the IKEv2, and even for that, I think we already have the
idea how it will be done, and it should not take too long.

Also I would assume that during 2017 we most likely will get some new
work items that will start working on, thus we will most likely want
to do recharter by the end of 2017 anyways. And if there is nothing
new to be done, and we have only 1-2 items left, we can continue
working them without WG if needed.

Year ago (IETF 93, July 2015) we had started charter dicussion last
time, i.e., during the meeting we discussed whether we should close
down the WG, or recharter and continue. Then we decided to keep the
WG, and recharter, but the recharter discussion took some time, and as
we did not meet in Yokohama IETF 94, the discussion on charter started
on the IETF 95 in Buenos Aires, and finalized during the IETF 96 in
Berlin.
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:54:57 +0200

Hi all,

two comments:

> Am 02.09.2016 um 15:41 schrieb Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>:
> 
> to do recharter by the end of 2017 anyways.

If that’s the case I would recommend to remove the deadline from the charter. Please note that if you end up without new work you can always ask your AD to close the group (even without this deadline in the charter).

> And if there is nothing

That’s usually not a good ideas. If you don’t have a wg all docs need to be AD sponsored. If you have a wg you can just finish your doc, ask for reviews on the mailing, and run an WGLC to ensure there is enough review. You don’t have to have meetings or what ever. I don’t see a reason to close a wg before the work is done (if there is enough energy to finish the work).

Mirja

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:36:04 -0400

Hello,

> If that’s the case I would recommend to remove the deadline from the charter. Please note that if you end up without new work you can always ask your AD to close the group (even without this deadli…

I don't see why this is such an issue, including a deadline in the
charter.  It hasn't been a problem for the past 2.5 year (and for the
AD for this group before).

I'm fine with a deadline remaining in the charter.

> That’s usually not a good ideas. If you don’t have a wg all docs need to be AD sponsored. If you have a wg you can just finish your doc, ask for reviews on the mailing, and run an WGLC to ensure th…

I can manage this with the WG.

Thank you.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:20:28 +0200

That’s fine. It’s just my opinion. But as responsible AD you can of course handle this as you like.

Mirja

> Am 02.09.2016 um 18:36 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hello,
>

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:01:14 -0400

> That’s fine. It’s just my opinion. But as responsible AD you can of course handle this as you like.

Sure and thanks for that.  The chairs did their analysis on the
timeline and shared that with me.  I think their analysis and
justification is reasonable and I trust their judgement and don't want
to micromanage the group as it's running just fine.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen