Subject: [Pearg] My thoughts on PEARG after IETF 102 side meeting

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:28:36 -0500

Dear Privacy types,

Thanks for including remote participants.

I wanted to comment on a couple of things I was thinking about, while
listening in.  I'm commenting as an individual, but I'm responsible AD for
the QUIC working group, so you know (1) this isn't my area of clue, so I
could be asking dumb questions, and (2) I care.

The meeting mentioned PEARG involvement early in IETF protocol work, rather
than at PubReq time or later. That's good. I also wonder if there are
specific places in the IETF that could be a priority, because the IETF is a
big place, and I wonder if there are protocols that need as much scrutiny
as QUIC has been getting, but haven't gotten that scrutiny now, for various
reasons. If those could be prioritized, that might be awesome.

The meeting mentioned PEARG doing for privacy what CFRG does for crypto. I
think I understand what CFRG has to offer to the IETF, both in terms of
expertise and outputs (I've balloted on conflict reviews for all their RFCs
listed at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?name=cfrg&sort=&rfcs=on&by=group&group=).
I'm having a harder time understanding what PEARG outputs would look like,
beyond the reviews mentioned in the proposed charter, but I look forward to
finding out.

I'd encourage you to do the type of reviews I heard discussed tonight.

The meeting mentioned HRPC reviews as one model. I've actually been on the
receiving end of one of those (on the MaRNEW IAB workshop report,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-marnew-report/). I found it
helpful to me. I'd suggest accepting solicitations to review, so authors
expect PEARG reviews (I didn't even know HRPC was doing reviews until I
opened my e-mail. It was a pleasant surprise, but it was a surprise).

I hope some of my thoughts are helpful. Best wishes in your explorations.

And thanks again for moving this forward.

Spencer