Hi, Mirja and *Suresh. Mirja, checking in with you regarding the status of this document. It appears that several questions remain open.
* Suresh, please note that in your capacity as Document Shepherd we also need to hear from you regarding the Security Considerations section and Mirja's comments below. Please review and advise. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9707-xmldiff2.html Thank you! RFC Editor/lb > On Jan 21, 2025, at 7:32 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <i...@kuehlewind.net> > wrote: > > > >> On 8. Jan 2025, at 00:49, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Please see comments below. >> >>> On Jan 7, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholo...@amsl.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Mirja: I don’t think security considerations are useful for workshop >>>> reports. All workshop reports that I’ve been involved with did not have >>>> security considerations but I did see that some other reports do. However, >>>> I assume they have mostly been added during AUTH48 based on this kind of >>>> request. Particularly just adding the sentence above is not useful and I >>>> wouldn’t want to do that just for the sake for process. If we want >>>> security consideration we should come up with real ones but as I said I >>>> don’t think we should just add anything to report in that respect. I think >>>> we should conclude with the IAB to not have security consideration for >>>> workshop reports in general in future. >>> >>> [rfced] Agreed that the section isn't necessary in this case, but for the >>> time being, we need to follow our current process, which includes asking >>> the Document Shepherd for approval. > > The IAB document shepherd or IAB stream manager or maybe IAB chair? > >>> >>> That being said, would you like us to set precedent here by removing the >>> Security Considerations and asking the Document Shepherd for approval of >>> the new form? > > RFC9490 (M-TEN), RFC9307 (AID), and RFC9075 (COVID) don’t have security > consideration. Yes, I’m an author on all of these, however, just saying this > one wouldn’t set the precedent. > >> >> Jumping in on this one - Security Considerations are required per the RFC >> Style Guide (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.html#section-4.8.5). >> We suggest the following: >> >> This document is a workshop report and does not impact the security of the >> Internet. > > I’d be fine with that and in this case we should just use this exact same > phrasing for all reports in my opinion. > >> >> If the IAB would like to discuss special handling for IAB workshop reports, >> we prefer having the discussion outside of an AUTH48. Please let us know if >> the text above is acceptable. > > Yes, we can’t decide this for good in the auth48 process, however, we could > simply add a short item to the next IAB call. I don’t think this would need a > long discussion… > > Mirja > > > >> >> Thanks, >> Sandy > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
