Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] GNS at dinrg

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:56:47 -0800

On 7/31/20 8:31 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> I hope I understand all of your points. The way I read the charter
> of DINRG correctly, our draft would fit into the goals and
> objectives of this WG, right? 

Well, maybe.  I'm not really sure what your goals are
for the document.  If it's to standardize a protocol, dinrg
is definitely not the right place.  If it's to refine
the document, contribute to the research community, and
find collaborators, sure, but that needn't entail draft
adoption, or even publication as an internet draft.  Note
that it's actually possible to do both, although it's rare
in practice (HIP had a research group for a few years, as
one example).  Also note that while CFRG occasionally
publishes standards, I think it's alone in that among IRTF
research groups, and is something of a (much-loved)
aberration.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

Software longa, hardware brevis

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 20:40:37 -0400

I second the proposal to consider an IRTF group.

One Way Sequence based naming is something we should have been looking at
since the Haber Stornetta Surety patent expired. Could apply the same
approach to RPKI and even (one day) DNS.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:57 PM Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

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