RE: IESG comments on generalize MPLS documents

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [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.

> 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.

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.

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.
> > >
>