Forwarding to raise awareness. Please provide feedback on the SPICE charter by Thursday, February 22 by using the spice@ietf mailing list (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice). This consensus thread starts here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spice/TTgOt6qI3CzILzV4i34nLmkmeMc/.
-----Original Message----- From: SPICE <spice-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 2:01 PM To: sp...@ietf.org Subject: [SPICE] Call for consensus on SPICE charter Hi! At IETF 118, a BoF on SPICE was convened [1]. The meeting provided a strong consensus signal that there was a problem to solve and that the IETF was the right place to do that. While there was enthusiasm around the topic, there was strong feedback the scope of the work needed refinement. In recent months, there have been numerous follow-on discussion and refinement on the charter text. As we approach final planning for IETF 119, I'd like to assess where we stand with a formal consensus check on a revised charter responsive to the feedback during the IETF 118 BoF. Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spice/00-00/ (00-00) and respond to the list by Thursday, February 22 (two weeks from now): ==[ start consensus check questions ]== (1) Do you support the charter text? Or do you have objections or blocking concerns (please describe what they might be and how you would propose addressing the concern)? If you do support the charter text: (2) Are you willing to author or participate in the developed of the WG drafts? (3) Are you willing to review the WG drafts? (4) Are you interested in implementing the WG drafts? ==[ end consensus check questions ]== If you previously spoke up at the BoF, please repeat yourself here. Earlier versions of a charter were shared on the mailing list and informal inquiries of support were requested. Please repeat your support or concerns for this 00-00 charter even if you commented on earlier iterations. The outcome of this consensus check will inform how to plan for the second SPICE BoF scheduled at IETF 118. Non-exhaustive options include: (a) If we find consensus on the mailing with the current charter text, no BoF is needed, and it will be canceled. Note, this should be viewed as a success. The entire point of the BoF is to produce and find consensus on a charter and that goal would have been realized. SPICE proponents have indicated a side meeting will be held. (b) If there are blocking concerns which cannot be resolved on the mailing list, these will form the basis of the IETF 118 BoF agenda A common question I've already gotten is can SPICE be a WG by IETF 119. The simple answer is no -- there is insufficient time to perform all of the necessary review steps before IETF 119 to charter SPICE. In more detail, assume hypothetically that there is unbridled enthusiasm for the work from the community and IESG: this email consensus check takes 2 weeks (till Feb 22) + 1 week advanced notice before an IESG formal telechat for initial review + initial IESG review (on Feb 29) + 10 days for community review + a return back for final IESG approval at a formal telechat. The last formal IESG telechat is March 7 (which is before the community review period would close). In the best case by IETF 119, this charter would have been through initial IESG review, all community feedback would have been adjudicated, and the charter would be waiting discussion at the first formal IESG telechat after the IETF 119 meeting. As a process matter, options (a) and (b) are both hypothetical options pending the results of this call for consensus. However, I'd like to be sensitive to earlier feedback on my use of option-(a) for the last WG chartered out of SEC, KEYTRANS. In the lead up to IETF 118, option-(a) was exercised for the planned KEYTRANS BOF (i.e., it was canceled) because consensus was found on the mailing list and sent to the IESG before the meeting. There was community feedback that canceling the BOF denied an opportunity to provide feedback that was being saved for the F2F BoF and missed a F2F opportunity to gather interested parties. To that end, I will be cross posting this call for consensus on SPICE to SAAG and identity adjacent WG lists (e.g., JOSE, COSE, SCITT, OAuth, RATS) to ensure broad awareness of this call. SPICE proponents have signaled to me that they would organize a side meeting if the BoF is canceled to ensure F2F discussions. Finally, if you are already aware of factors w hich necessitate a F2F BOF discussion that can't be introduced as part of this consensus check on the mailing list, please let me know. Thanks, Roman [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-118-spice-202311070830/ -- SPICE mailing list sp...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spice _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
