RE: IESG comments on generalize MPLS documents

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

At 05:53 PM 9/23/2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [<mailto:[e-mail]>mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: maandag 23 september 2002 23:25
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Berger, Lou; Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: IESG comments on generalize MPLS documents
> >
> > Bert, the IESG web site says:
> > SUB JUN 5 Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description
> > (Proposed Standard)
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-09.txt
> >   Token: bwijnen
> >   Note: New revision needed
> >    Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions (Proposed Standard)
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-07.txt
> >    Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions (Proposed Standard)
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-08.txt
> >
>Well.. you know I have lots of things on my plate. They are in my
>queue of things to do. I warned you many months ago to do most of
>the things that came back after IESG review. Had you done them back
>then, then probably things would have moved faster.
>Sorry to be kind of nasty here.... but could not resists.

I'll resist responding further.

> > Given that we issued new revs almost 1 month ago and there's been no
> > additional comments, what's need to progress the documents?
> >
>We need to make sure that security ADs are OK with your new text.
>You can ping them directly and re-ask the question.

sure why not, but I look to you as the responsible AD to either get a 
response or to move the document along.

>I will try and review again this week and then try to get them back
>on IESG agenda. That is: your ping did raise the priority.
>But pls do follow up with security ADs.

will do.

Lou

>Bert
> > Thanks,
> > Lou
> >
> > PS Never heard from the security ADs and the reference you
> > gave relates to
> > TCP and is appropriate for LDP, but not RSVP.
> >
> > At 03:27 PM 8/29/2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >
> > >I still have no complete answer from the SEC ADs...
> > >But a start might be document draft-iab-sec-cons-00.txt
> > >specifically sect 4.5.1
> > >
> > >Hope this gets you started
> > >
> > >Bert
> > > > > ><draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >1. This doc says "just use IPsec".  A clearer
> > statement is needed,
> > > > > >    specifying the necessary IPsec selectors (per RFC
> > 2401) and the
> > > > > >    way the cryptographically protected endpoints are
> > related to
> > > > > >    the authorization model, i.e., who can do what.
> > > > >
> > > > > can you provide an example of what you'd like to see?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am checking with Security ADs.
> > > >
> >