Subject: [secdir] What and who is SecDir?

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:32:36 -0400

Over in the "secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2"
thread, Paul and Nico had this exchange, which I don't want to see
lost in that thread that not everyone will be reading:

Nico:
>>> "We", secdir, are volunteers.  This volunteer would rather avoid wheel
>>> reinvention, and this volunteer, perhaps naively, had hoped others
>>> would agree.  Perhaps other volunteers disagree (you do).  I
>>> explicitly referred to secdir, not WG chairs, not ADs, nor did I refer
>>> to actual current practice, but rather stated an opinion of what we
>>> ought to do.

Paul:
>> Most people on secdir are here because they are chairs of WGs in the Security
>> Area. Maybe you are thinking of the old secdir model. :-)

Nico:
> Perhaps I don't belong here any longer then?  And yes, I'm thinking of
> the old secdir model.  When was it abandoned?  (We both seem to be out
> of date then regarding secdir practices!)

As I see it -- and the ADs can chime in if they see it differently --
Nico and Paul are both right.  We are volunteers who want to see
security issues in IETF protocols brought up and discussed, and who
are willing to help do that through reviews and discussion.  The group
is seeded with the chairs from the sec-area WGs, but it doesn't
comprise those chairs exclusively.  And I, at least, wouldn't like it
to.

For my part, I certainly think, Nico, that you do still belong here.
I'd hate to see people leave this directorate just because they no
longer chair any sec-area WGs.  That we don't always agree, as a
group, and that there are sometimes arguments about the
appropriateness of one reviewers comments, from the point of view of
another, is only natural.  If those disagreements lead to interesting,
useful discussions (even if they briefly become "arguments", and
sometimes get a bit heated), that's all the better.  No part of the
IETF is strife-free.  Just so long as we leave the twibills back in
the armory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Barry

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:42:27 +0100

Nicely put. Only thing I'd add is that for some
discussions it might be useful to move to saag or
ietf-discuss if getting broader input is useful,
since while secdir archives are open, posting is
moderated. I don't think anyone needs permission
for that, but I guess as ADs we should be watching
out for discussions that would be better in a more
open environment.

In this case, it was a pretty quick flurry of
mails that got resolved so that wasn't appropriate.

S.

On 15/04/11 14:32, Barry Leiba wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:02:06 -0400

> longer chair any sec-area WGs.  That we don't always agree, as a

If that were the case I'd have left the directorate a while ago, and a
number of current members would never have been on it (because they have
not been chairs of security-area working groups).  I don't think that
having a blue dot is a requirement to be on the sec-dir (although I
think that the inverse is true, having a blue dot (in the security area)
should require you to join sec-dir.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

---

From: Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:31:09 -0400

> should require you to join sec-dir.

As the former SEC AD who set up the current structure, you're quite right.
I (re)started it as a group of people whom I thought could contribute to
security in IETF protocols, and shortly thereafter (I forget on whose
suggestion) added the SEC WG chairs.

		--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:22:58 +0100

> comprise those chairs exclusively.  And I, at least, wouldn't like it
Big +1. ;-)
And thank you for mentioning this on the secdir list.
And loved the film. ;-)

Tobias

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:02:11 +0700

> should require you to join sec-dir.

It depends: if the goal is to gather security clue, a blue dot in the
security area doesn't guarantee that; in fact, I can think of a couple
who should probably be excluded...