Clarify IETF liaison

[brentzundel]

fixes #52
Signed-off-by: Brent Zundel brent.zundel@gmail.com

---

Preview | Diff

[msporny]

The removed <dd> is problematic. The SAAG won't do broad horizontal reviews, will it @samuelweiler? The reason the SAD was in there before was to tell us "Oh, you want X... then you need to talk with Y." Will the SAAG do that for us now (I'm not familiar w/ them)?

I guess the question is -- who is going to tell us "If you want that sort of review, you need to go /over there/."?

[selfissued]

To my knowledge, neither the IESG nor SAAG have formal liaison relationships, so it doesn't make sense to include them here. Please remove them.

That said, when we think we're ready, I'm great with informally asking either or both if they'd be willing to do a friendly review, possibly assisted by Mark Nottingham, who had expressed interest in helping in the past.

[msporny]

@mnot, what would be the best way to say "We would like to work with the 'Security People' at IETF when it comes to reviewing, or suggesting who should review, the normative output for this W3C Working Group?".

This is what's in the charter right now under the Liasons section (I added the liaisons after speaking with you months ago about what to do):

Internet Engineering Task Force Security Area Directorate
To coordinate broad horizontal reviews on the output of the Working Group among the security working groups at IETF.
Internet Engineering Task Force Crypto Forum Research Group
To perform broad horizontal reviews on the output of the Working Group and to ensure that new pairing-based and post-quantum cryptographic algorithms and parameters can be integrated into the Data Integrity ecosystem.

@samuelweiler wanted us to replace the SAD with the SAAG. @selfissued is saying don't list the liaison relationship at all.

Help, please.

[mnot]

Perhaps it's best to say something a bit more fuzzy, like:

Internet Engineering Task Force
The Working Group will seek security review from the IETF, coordinated through the Liaison

[brentzundel]

@selfissued @msporny @samuelweiler
I have revised the PR according to the suggestions from @mnot, please review

[selfissued]

Fine now - thanks

[msporny]

I'm fine w/ being less precise.

[iherman]

@samuelweiler, this PR (and the linked issue) is an answer to your comment; are you o.k. with this, so that we can merge this PR and close the corresponding issue?

[brentzundel]

Merging this PR in accordance with our current working mode. If further changes are desired, we can track those in the related issue #52