Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure
charter-ietf-opsec-05

[Ballot comment]
Maybe I'm pedantic. Take it or leave it

  These are documents that describe the scope of particular operational security
  challenges or problem spaces without necessarily coming to conclusions or
  proposing solutions.

Not sure what is an example of a document that describe the scope of particular operational security challenges or problem spaces "without necessarily coming to conclusions".
There is always a conclusion: there is a problem.

Strike "without necessarily coming to conclusions or"?

[Ballot comment]

I agree with Adrian's comment. Adding privacy would here would be a good
thing if the WG are willing to take it into account. It'd be a bad thing if the WG
didn't care though.

[Ballot comment]
I have no issues with the existing text.

However, if the ADs and chairs were to consider adding "privacy" to the scope, I would be very pleased to see it.

[Ballot comment]
r/security.In particular,/security. In particular,

there's a couple of places where there are two spaces between words - might be datatracker injected.

I support Stewart's block, but I'd be happy with the following modification to the 1st sentence (r/must be through a/is by a working group):

New protocol work is addressed by a working group chartered for that work, or via one of the individual submission processes.

[Ballot block]
The OPSEC WG is not the place to do new protocols. New protocol work should
be addressed in a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as
individual submissions.

I an concerned that this is not emphatic. How about:

The OPSEC WG is will not write or modify protocols. New protocol work must
be addressed through a working group chartered for that work, or via
one of the individual submission processes.

[Ballot comment]
Spurious text fragment:
"For each topic addressed, the working group will produce a document that
captures common practices related to secure network operation.  will be
produced. "

I think that the following could perhaps be reduced

other working groups that develop protocols or the
community of protocol developers at large and implementers of these
protocols.

How about

other working groups that develop protocols or the
protocol development community.

This is a revised charter proposal for the opsec WG. it was formulated with the chairs and discussed on the mailing list at the behest of the managing AD. It was intended to address the concerns of other area dictors that some documents coming out of opsec might be out of scope for opsec due to their status (informational vs BCP) In conjunction with the rechartering effort the milestones for the WG have been updated.