Re: [karp] Question: splitting RAPD discussion from policy framework discussion in draft-atwood-karp-aapm-rp

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 01 August 2013 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA1E21E80F7 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.682
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.682 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 0lGe39Zc8KUb for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7DB21F994B for <karp@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 05:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBD2F2407E; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYaxb2-NS+1Z; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:13:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dhcp-540a.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-540a.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.84.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBACF24038; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:13:58 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <tslzjt2exde.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:13:54 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <7F6E286F-A089-4AB3-9490-5DFDF2A69278@vigilsec.com>
References: <tslzjt2exde.fsf@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] Question: splitting RAPD discussion from policy framework discussion in draft-atwood-karp-aapm-rp
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:14:29 -0000

I agree that it would be valuable to tackle the "broader policy framework."

Russ


On Jul 31, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> Hi.  During the presentation of our draft, I asked Steve Kent whether he
> thought it would be valuable to split the discussion of the conseptual
> database similar to aspects of the IPsec PAD and SPD from the broader
> policy framework.  He said yes.  I said it would be valuable to get
> feedback from others about whether this split is useful.  The chairs
> asked me to ask on the list.