Re: re PING @ IETF 97

Also, rather obviously, I *think* that the PING and TAG surveys are there to help people write a privacy and security considerations section.  However, I just came across a group that felt that answering (mostly with ‘no’ as it’s a format spec.) in email is enough.

I suspect that both surveys need to say, on the question “Does this specification have a privacy and security considerations section” that the only valid answers are “yes” or “No, not yet, but it will before any formal advancement request is made”

Even if there are no such considerations (hard to believe for any non-trivial spec.), the spec. needs to say that.

> On Nov 19, 2016, at 1:15 , Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 18 Nov 2016, at 7:53 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 17, 2016, at 18:38 , Christine Runnegar <runnegar@isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> (3) Privacy questionnaire
>>> 
>>> We have been receiving increasing numbers of requests to conduct privacy reviews of specifications. Our PING resources do not scale to this. So, we really need to devote our core effort to getting this out the door. I’m looking for volunteers to work with me on the draft in December. 
>> 
>> I recently started this for the VTT specification (and sent a copy to this list).  It became clear that the questions were written with the mind-set that the spec is for a protocol, and I think we need better questions for specs of formats.
> 
> Noted. Thank you David. If you have suggestions for what those better questions might be like that would be really helpful. 
>> 
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> 
> 

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 19:23:15 UTC