RE: Formal consultation prior to closing the secsh working group

["Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <jsalowey%cisco.com@localhost>]

I think it would not be too much work to complete the URI draft for SSH
without SFTP and SCP.  I would also like to see this go forward. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost 
> [mailto:ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost] On Behalf Of Steve Suehring
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 6:12 PM
> To: ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Cc: housley%vigilsec.com@localhost
> Subject: Re: Formal consultation prior to closing the secsh 
> working group
> 
> 
> For my part, I'd like to see the URI draft finalized and 
> passed through.  From what I recall, there was some 
> disagreement over some bits of the SCP and SFTP but the SSH 
> portion was largely finalized.  
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that the SSH portion of the 
> draft be taken individually.  We had talked about this months 
> ago but never followed through.
> 
> Therefore, I can resubmit the draft with just the SSH bits so 
> that it can be progressed if that's still an option for this WG.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:15:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 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
>