Subject: [perpass] Fwd: [] Draft report on IETF89 PM review lunch meeting report

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:22:16 -0400

There was a decision to use the ietf-privacy email list for the PM 
review work work instead of the perpass list.

This was sent to ietf-privacy list and then forwarded to perpass, but we 
should probably try to limit  discussion to the ietf-privacy list if at 
all possible.

avri

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ietf-privacy] Draft report on IETF89 PM review lunch meeting 
report
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 06:19:51 -0400
From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Draft Meeting report.

A set of notes created by Scott Brim (thanks!) can be found at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GwD5m09p42fS3OWucYwPZ0lWcVN8Y_HIN0yp2BzYYYI/edit?usp=sharing

Those who were at the meeting should feel free to add their comments.  A
text view of their current state is attached to this message.

In terms of the meeting, we discussed several issues and I believe we
came up with the following:

- Volunteers will be begin to work on reviews of existing standards
track RFCs

- While the reviews will be primarily for Pervasive Monitoring (PM)
risks and issues, privacy issues will also be in scope for the reviews.

- Several Protocols were given as first examples including;
    -- DNS (there are already some reviews in circulation)
    -- DHCP (There is already an review i this area)
    -- URI usage
    -- yet to be selected from the INT area

There is a long list of things to be reviewed.  Stephen Farrell agreed
to check with other ADs on any particular recommendations they might
have on docs to be reviewed.

- There are several volunteers for this work listed in the meeting
notes.  Several volunteers came forward later.  This will be tracked on
the wiki once it is set up.

- An initial milestone of 15 May was set for some of the reviews.

- We had a discussion of some of the review work that had been done.  It
was the feeling of the group that while we should be collecting a set of
bases for PM reviews, we would build on the work done for privacy
including RFC6973 Questionnaire.  Creating a criteria set for PM
reviewing would be an ongoing project.  There was discussion on the
utility of prioritizing or categorizing  the PM and Privacy concerns.

- While the group did not decide to work on reviews of current drafts,
there was a spirit of cooperation on the work being done by Gen Art.
This needs follow-up.

- There was a decision to use the ietf-privacy email list for this work
instead of the perpass list.  This is being sent to ietf-privacy and
then forwarded to perpass, but we should probably try to limit
discussion to the ietf-privacy list if at all possible.

-  I will work to coordinate activities Using an IETF WIki.  this Wiki
has been setup, <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/ppm-legacy-review/>
but I have not done anything with it yet.  Still learning this flavor of
wiki, but will have some first pages soon.  Eg. will put thse notes and
the meeting notes on the wiki.

26 People signed the not quite blue sheets.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:49:54 +0000

> should probably try to limit  discussion to the ietf-privacy list if at

Except for this: I'd like to really thank Avri and also Scott
for getting this together and for being willing to try help us
organise these reviews. And everyone else who has or will
contribute as well of course:-)

Cheers,
S.

> _______________________________________________
> perpass mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
>