Subject: [perpass] current status and plan for things that are in progress already...

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 14:47:28 +0000

Hi again,

I've updated that file of the current list of topics
with what I think it their status [1] and below is what
I think is the plan for those.

As before comments, discussion, suggestions, volunteering
for stuff all all welcome!

Cheers,
S.

There are four kinds of things at [1]:

1. Topics where we've identified people and where to process
them. Those are done as far as the perpass list is concerned.

2. Problem statement drafts. I think it'd be good to
amalgamate those along with material from Dave Thaler's
perpass BoF presentation into a single RFC that describes the
situation in detail. I don't think we need or want that to be
on the critical path for other work, but its useful to
document the situation as we know it. Richard Barnes has
agreed to take the lead on working with the folks who've
written text to get all that done.

3. Other "perpass" drafts with no other home right now

3a.  a TBD "it's an attack" draft that's being discussed by
the IESG/IAB to reflect the outcome of the IETF-88 tech
plenary. I think that could maybe get done quickly and hope
to see a -00 out soon

3b. the threat model, Brian is progressing this

3c. the privacy BCP, needs work, Alissa has the pen

3d. a TBD draft that explains OE and how to do it well, I'm
looking for volunteers for that, who've recently implemented
e.g. ECDH. I've asked one person who's not yet committed
so let me know if you think you could help.

4. Stuff that's still in-progress for the perpass list -
that's a list that'll (I hope) grow and shrink as we identify
bits of work and volunteers. Please continue discussing
and adding to that list.

[1] http://down.dsg.cs.tcd.ie/misc/perpass.txt

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:09:43 -0500 (EST)

> so let me know if you think you could help.

I'm happy to help here.

Paul

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:40:04 +0100

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 02:47:28PM +0000,
 Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 53 lines which said:

> problem statement drafts. I think it'd be good to amalgamate those
> along with material from Dave Thaler's perpass BoF presentation into
> a single RFC that describes the situation in detail.

I'm of course willing to send the source of
draft-bortzmeyer-perpass-dns-privacy to the catenater but I believe it
is too early: there are not many "problem statement" drafts and they
are typically only at the beginning.