Subject: [spring] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 06:09:48 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with the other folks who've bemoaned the fact that
the security considerations text is less comprehensive than
the charter text. Which document in the WG will document the
security issues with SPRING generally and which WG documents
currently contain the kind of security analysis called for in
the charter? (I had a quick look and didn't see anything
obvious.) I'm making this a DISCUSS ballot on the assumption
that we're better off having the "who's doing the work and
where is it?" discussion now and not each time a document
gets to the IESG without that work having been done.