Subject: [Taps] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-taps-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:20:09 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-taps-01-00: No Objection

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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the point of this update is to add security analysis to the charter
scope, would it make sense to specify how the WG plans to engage with the
security area, as is typically done when there is overlap or coupling between
work in different WGs? E.g., will the WG be seeking early review from the
security area on relevant drafts?

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:42:23 -0600

Dear TAPsters,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/

Alissa has a reasonable question here. Could you let me know what you're
thinking about the best way to interact with the security area for this
work?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Christopher Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:50:34 -0800

Hi Spencer,

> thinking about the best way to interact with the security area for this

I imagined we'd circulate polished drafts to SecDispatch or SAAG for
review. However, if there is relevant precedent in this sort of
cross-area collaboration, it'd make sense to follow that instead.

Best,
Chris