Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:59:36 -0400

Hello,

Since Rich's submission includes comments from our private
conversation, I'll rehash the conversation to clarify my the points I
made with some (not all) background on my thinking.

I had asked Rich what he was interested to do as AD.  He responded
that he would close down I2NSF first.  As responsible AD for that WG,
I was surprised and tried to explain the value of the work as it
probably wasn't an area of expertise for him.  As such, my response
started off with something along the lines of customers brought that
work into the IETF and we rarely get customers with a problem coming.
Then I explained the value of the work that is coming from the group
with an example of a draft that was adopted shortly after we spoke.
The draft automates provisioning of IPsec sessions within a hosted
service provider environment.  Many similar drafts will follow to
remotely provision security services.

Side note: having been a CISO and been responsible for enterprise
security, being able to provision your security infrastructure and
deploy security controls for your hosted environments will be a big
step forward for many. The enterprises ability to generate reports on
their security controls will help for their internal security
assessments as well as internal/external audits. I would hope any new
AD would take the time to understand work they may be managing before
making decisions to close it down.  Maybe he would do that, but it
might be a question to dig into more.

Then I explained that with new work comes new people to the IETF.  In
the case of I2NSF, they are engaging in multiple WGs and that's a
really positive thing.  Having customers engaged early in the process
will only improve the outcome.  Then I went into numbers and
apparently, that's what stuck in Rich's mind and not that I see the
work of I2NSF as valuable.  With 10 new people for a WG across 130
some odd WGs, we have over 1000 active people contributing to the
IETF.  It does bring in new people as as work closes down, others
leave.

IMO, it's great that some people engaging in new WGs understand the
IETF way and begin to contribute in other WGs, review work of others
so they in turn have their work reviewed and improved.

In "full transparency", that's just a few of my thoughts on this
complicated topic.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:20:09 +0000

Kathleen,

I apologize if I embarrassed you in any way.

On 10/17/17, 11:00 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hello,

    

    

    -- 
    
    Best regards,
    Kathleen

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:26:39 -0400

Rich,

It was a misquote and I'm not embarrassed as I never said we should
start up new WGs that don't have value. I felt it was important to
clarify since my thoughts are very different from your statement. I do
believe in the work of the WGs for which I am the responsible AD and
have spent the time to understand the importance of their work.

Best,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:34:55 +0000

I agree, I mis-summarized what you said.

I hope the important point -- that I learned something from our conversation – doesn’t get lost.

On 10/17/17, 11:27 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Rich,

    Best,
    Kathleen

    
    -- 
    
    Best regards,
    Kathleen

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:45:09 -0400

Thank you.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen