Re: [GROW] [OPSEC] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sat, 02 June 2012 20:43 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01C621F859E; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Up-XVey0F2fk; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB6721F8599; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.40] (unknown [207.34.158.233]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6FD41B40819; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:43:50 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <016b01cd37fc$9e125420$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:43:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F64DCE8D-8683-4437-945F-580887FB9A66@kumari.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D76BA8836D@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <016b01cd37fc$9e125420$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: grow@ietf.org, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, opsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] [OPSEC] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:43:53 -0000
-- A. No Q. Is it sensible to top-post? On May 22, 2012, at 5:23 AM, t.petch wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@juniper.net> > To: <grow@ietf.org>; <opsec@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11 PM >> Folks, >> >> Thanks for introducing this document! >> >> I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following > documents that are working in OPSEC: >> >> - draft-behringer-lla-only >> - draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address >> >> To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one > another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is > not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being > considered in different WGs. > > I think it a bigger shame that draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores is > not in the RFC Editor queue awaiting publication! Ok, so I guess the obvious question here is -- *why* is this not in the Ed queue (and please don't say "Because WGLC / LC hasn't happened yet, dummy" :-)). I spent a little time going back through the archives, but suspect I'm missing something / somethings (note: I have not read the meeting minutes yet)… There seems to be very little discussion regarding this / these, but the general impression I got was that the WG likes this draft and would like a: it to subsume -beringer- or b: to simply get published. It was unclear to me how many folk had read / supported the draft, but... I suspect that I'm missing some context / some off list discussions… Is this just a "someone needs to wave the WGLC wand" situation? W > > It is a natural companion to RFC6598 and could have, should have, been > in the queue at the same time. This I-D was relevant when it was first > written 2 years ago, and I see its relevance decreasing with time, as > people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented. It > has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has changed > in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of the door. > > Of course there is scope for improvement, there always is, but that is > an argument for never publishing anything. If the authors of the other > I-Ds want to build on it, then of course they can produce a bis that > covers more, but let's publish what we have got. > > Tom Petch > >> >> For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a > little cross-posting is acceptable. >> >> -------------------------- >> Ron Bonica >> vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> GROW@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >
- [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores Ronald Bonica
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores Nick Hilliard
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores Anthony Kirkham
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores t.petch
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores Robert Raszuk
- Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores Ronald Bonica
- Re: [GROW] [OPSEC] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-… Warren Kumari
- Re: [GROW] [OPSEC] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-… Christopher Morrow
- Re: [GROW] [OPSEC] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-… Christopher Morrow