W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > October 2017

Fwd: T2TRG last call for draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons-07

From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 13:43:38 +0000
To: "public-wot-ig@w3.org" <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6A401F6E-FDF4-4667-9037-E2EB2185FEA1@ericsson.com>
Dear WoT group,

The "State-of-the-Art and Challenges for the Internet of Things Security" T2TRG draft is now in RG last call. See details below.

These security considerations are to large extent applicable to most IoT systems, including what we are envisioning at the WoT group. At the T2TRG we'd like to get feedback on the draft, even partial, from the perspective of various groups and individuals. Please consider reviewing the draft and send your comments to the T2TRG mailing list: t2trg@irtf.org


Thanks,
Ari (as T2TRG co-chair)

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
> Subject: T2TRG last call for draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons-07
> Date: 2 October 2017 at 10.42.14 GMT+3
> To: t2trg@irtf.org
> Cc: t2trg-chairs@irtf.org
> 
> This is the RG last call for the draft "State-of-the-Art and Challenges
> for the Internet of Things Security":
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons-07

> 
> This is the first RG last call in T2TRG.  Note that an RG last call is
> not a WGLC.  RFC 5743 says about the role of the RG in the publishing
> process:
> 
>  o  The Research Group (RG) performs a thorough technical and
>     editorial review of the document and agrees it should be
>     published.
> 
> Fundamentally, the RG needs to agree that the document should be
> published.  That can be the case even if not all RG members *agree*
> with the document.  RFC 5743 further says:
> 
>  o  There must be a paragraph near the beginning (for example, in the
>     introduction) describing the level of support for publication.
>     Example text might read: "this document represents the consensus
>     of the FOOBAR RG" or "the views in this document were considered
>     controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the RG reached a consensus that
>     the document should still be published".
> 
> From the discussion so far, we could agree that we have reached RG
> consensus, but it is essential that we get good reviews at the present
> stage of the document.  So if you have read the document and agree
> with the positions taken, please say so.  If you think that there is
> space for dissenting opinions, but do agree that this document should
> be published, please say so.  (And, if you think it should not be
> published as an RG document, please do say so, too.)
> 
> Please send your feedback to the RG list (or exceptionally to the
> chairs, in Cc) by October 16th.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ari & Carsten
> 

Received on Monday, 9 October 2017 13:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 October 2017 13:44:06 UTC