Hi Jeff, On 14/08/2024 01:05, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Hm. The ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost list was used by the original secsh working group and has served as a forum for ongoing (if quite low-volume) discussion since then. Why not reuse it, instead of setting up a new list?
I think it's been quite a long time since any IETF WG hasn't had an @ietf.org mailing list - there are some people who read IETF lists via the IMAP interface for those, and using an @ietf.org list also means list archives are preserved better, so I think we will want to use an @ietf.org list for the WG. That said, we will need to consider how to ensure that people only on ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost can be involved in the work. I'm not sure of the best approach to that off the top of my head - I'd suggest we punt on that for the moment and consider it once the WG is up and running. Is that ok? (I can make a promise that as a co-chair, I'll bring this up as a topic for discussion once the WG is formed, if that helps.)
The scope of a maintenance group like this should include discussion and evaluation of proposed extensions and revisions. Of course, actually working on any such proposal would require a charter revision, but IMHO it should be clear that this group is the right place for such discussions.
That's fair. One goal with the initial charter is to try get up and running with some relatively modest/obvious goals, and, if that pans out, then re-chartering to do other stuff people want to do is entirely feasible (modulo the charter guidance about preserving interop and staying in step with real implementations). So while of course the WG list will be a good place to propose extensions and revisions, in order to make progress we'll want to ensure the set of things we focus on are doable. That's all kind of implicit though for any IETF WG - rechartering once initial work is done or well underway is always possible, so I'm not sure we need words in the charter saying that. But if you'd like to suggest some, fire away... Cheers, S.
-- Jeff On Tue, Aug 13, 2024, 18:38 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell%cs.tcd.ie@localhost> wrote:Thanks Deb, On 13/08/2024 23:24, Deb Cooley wrote:Or for more information see here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sshm/about/As you'll have seen if you went to that web page, Deb and Paul have asked Job Snijders and I to help out doing a bit of chairing whenever this WG is officially setup. We're happy to try help out that way. If anyone has any questions about IETF process or anything else relevant, feel free to just mail the list, or if you prefer, you could send off-list mail to Job and I. Meanwhile, comments on the draft charter, [1] as Deb said, would be good to get in the immediate future. If you think that text is good enough, getting a few "looks good to me" mails sent to the list could also be useful for people involved in approving the formation of the WG. Cheers, S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sshm/
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature