Moving the OPSEC WG towards closure

["Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>]

Hi,

Our Working Group (WG) has been missing our milestones and is getting some
concerns about getting our work done and closing in an appropriate time
frame. Our ADs and us have come up with a plan to finish our critical work
items in a reasonable timeframe. If you have serious problems with the
proposed plan or schedule you should let Ross and I and David, our AD, know.

The plan:

A. Last call the current-practices and security-efforts now.

B. Everybody who signed up or volunteered to craft a document MUST submit it
to the IETF repository by September 1, 2006. The document needs to have real
content, too, not just placeholders.

C. Between now and the next IETF in November, we need to have all
documents accepted as working group documents and substantially
complete, so that the entire set will be ready for last call no later
than soon after the IETF in November. Any document that is not accepted
as a working group document and substantially complete will be
deleted from the WG charter.

D. The goal is to have all our documents to the IESG prior to the March
IETF.

[Note that new capability docs or profiles or other things could be
submitted as individual internet-drafts anytime in the future.]

Although the schedule seems compact, most of the documents that we have
thought of as critical to our success are pretty far along. And many of the
unwritten documents have had a series of volunteers to write them with no
output. So if you think we're missing a important capability document, or
have signed up to craft one, this is the time to actually knock it out.
Soon.

Note that the profile document, which has generated some interest is
currently unwritten. George and I have talked about doing a "how to profile
the capabilities to your environment" document but neither of us have the
enthusiasm to write the actual profile document.

To help us get to completion, you should feel free to READ all the documents
and make comments to the mail list.

Thanks,
Pat (and Ross)