Re: Formal consultation prior to closing the secsh working group

["tom.petch" <cfinss%dial.pipex.com@localhost>]

Yes, sadly, I too think that the energy in this group has subsided to the point
where further progress on I-Ds is unlikely to be timely or reviewed in depth.

My concern is that the use of ssh is still growing - isms being an obvious one,
syslog over ssh less so - and, like tls, people with an applications background
struggling to write I-Ds need help from those better versed in security matters.
Currenlty, the ssh and tls lists serve that purpose.  As and when ssh closes,
where should such a discussion go?  Leaving the list open is an option but my
experience is that the support for it withers away.  Is there a better home for
ongoing support?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf%mit.edu@localhost>
To: <ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost>
Cc: <housley%vigilsec.com@localhost>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:15 AM
Subject: Formal consultation prior to closing the secsh working group


>
>
> Hi folks.
>
> The ssh working group has accomplished its primary objective and has
> published the core protocol as RFCs.  We've also published several
> related extensions.
>
> We have not managed to publish the filexfer, URI or X.509 drafts.
>
> However, I've come to the conclusion that there is insufficient energy
> in this working group to continue reviewing or producing documents.
> All of our milestones are from 2005.  There seems to be no significant
> activity on anything other than the filexfer draft.
>
> I'm very concerned about the filexfer draft.  It is well on the way to
> becoming a filesystem, not just an ftp-like protocol.  I am concerned
> that we don't have enough reviewers to manage the complexity of the
> draft and to force us to make hard decisions about what features we
> really need.  Instead, we're close to including everything.  I have
> received several private comments to this effect.  I am not sure that
> we have the skill set necessary to design and review a filesystem
> document and I think that is what filexfer is becoming.
>
>
> RFC 2418 defines procedures for creating, managing and terminating of
> working groups.  That document stresses the importance of an active
> community of reviewers and subject matter experts.  IT makes it clear
> that it is the responsibility of the working group to make sure the
> right people are available to do the work of the WG.
>
> I no longer think this working group has sufficient reviewers or
> contributors.  So, I propose to close the working group.
>
> RFC 2418 requires a formal consultation prior to closing a working
> group.  This message serves as the beginning of such a consultation.
> I'd like to solicit comments on the proposal to close the secsh
> working group by August 14, 2006.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sam Hartman
> Security Area Director