Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt]

[Tony Tauber <ttauber at 1-4-5.net>]

OK, seems there's some consensus for adopting this draft as a WG
work item.  Please express any opposition in the next eight days
(by COB 11/27).

Thanks,

Tony

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:12:51AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> That was my impression as well (that the document falls into the scope of 
> the WG, under the condition you noted)
>
> Geoff
>
>
> Michael H. Behringer wrote:
>> Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next. 
>> My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in scope 
>> of the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are 
>> handled by referring to the Bellovin draft. (Once we have defined that the 
>> subject is in scope for the WG, then there is of course a lot more work to 
>> be done - thanks for the feedback received). Is this correct? Do we have a 
>> consensus on this? Michael
>> At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>> At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a
>>>>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs
>>>>>> being worked on in the Transport area.
>>>>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on
>>>>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing
>>>>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP
>>>>> transport requirements.
>>>> Two questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. What does the rest of the WG think about this?
>>>>
>>>>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements would
>>>>>  be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG.
>>>> This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM docs
>>>> contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requirements?
>>> I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for 
>>> point-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the 
>>> work being done in the Transport area.
>>>
>>>> 2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the
>>>> direction to go?
>>> I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better 
>>> document.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPSEC mailing list
>>> RPSEC at ietf.org
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
>>> ?)??%?On?A1?
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPSEC mailing list
>> RPSEC at ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPSEC mailing list
> RPSEC at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec


_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec