Hi Brian, My take below fwiw. Be interested in more opinions.
On 02/19/2014 12:23 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > To save time and hot air in London, I'm wondering about > a couple of things concerning PM reviews: > > 1) Won't PM review just be folded into the regular security > review for future documents? Yep. We will need to progress e.g. Richard's threat document first though probably (maybe as an update to bcp 72) before folks get comfortable with that but yes the goal is that secdir will consider this. (That's started informally a bit already.) > If so, a new effort is only > needed for reviewing past work. Almost but not quite. A new effort is needed and useful for reviewing past work and this lunch session is about that. But there'll also be other stuff too no doubt, e.g. to figure out how to handle new crypto like curve 25519 maybe together with CFRG. > > 2) As a Gen-ART reviewer, I'm wondering whether Gen-ART > should add it to our (virtual) checklist of issues, or > can we leave it entirely to the security review. I'd love to see both teams tackle this topic if possible. More coverage is just better. > > Do we need to discuss these points at Monday lunchtime? We'll see I guess but if the above makes sense maybe not or only briefly (or we can cover at saag too). Again, more opinions welcome. S. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 19/02/2014 00:04, Avri Doria wrote: >> hi, >> >> In order to figure out whether we have a sufficient size room I have >> been asked to initiate a doodle poll on "Attend IETF perpass mtg on 3 >> March 2014." >> >> Please follow the link in order to participate in the poll: >> http://doodle.com/7u73796tkvbukfi4 >> >> thanks >> >> avri >> > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > perpass@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list perpass@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
