Hi Lynne, As the document shepherd I am fine with skipping the Security Considerations in this document, as has been done for some past workshop reports. If you feel that special casing these sends out a wrong message to the community I think we can add your proposed boilerplate text and consistently do so for the future.
Thanks Suresh > On Feb 3, 2025, at 11:53 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > <lbartholo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > 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
