Re: [karp] WG LC: draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-05 to Informational

William Atwood <> Wed, 10 April 2013 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29B621F936E for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agMMFs1cN9GV for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FFA21F936D for <>; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (envelope-from (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r3AK4n0J014773; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:04:49 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:04:55 -0400
From: William Atwood <>
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <>, KARP Working Group <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on at 2013/04/10 16:04:50 EDT
Subject: Re: [karp] WG LC: draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-05 to Informational
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:04:52 -0000

I support draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-05 as Informational.

I assume that the corrections that I suggested (off-line) to Sam and
Dacheng will be incorporated into a final version.

Wes's issue of key expiration makes sense to me, so I support it.

Wes' issue of grouping/ungrouping peers makes sense to me, so I support
it.  We have touched on one aspect of this issue (the scope of keys) in

I have read the comment on Section 6.1 and the email that is cited.  I
agree that, for the kind of document that ops-model is intended to be
(i.e., targeted at a member of a routing working group who knows little
about security), no assumption should be made about "proper security
procedures being in place".  It is the fact that we know that they are
_not_ in place that is driving the entire KARP effort, after all.  I
therefore support inclusion of more text here.


On 10/04/2013 8:44 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Hi.  I didn't see any last call comments besides Wes's comments.  I'd
> also like to get some support for Wes's comments before folding them in.
> As I've said I personally support but would prefer to see if we can
> shake up more than one person saying "yes" at this stage.
> chairs, would it make sense for me to try and prepare a draft next week
> that hopefully can be sent on?
> _______________________________________________
> karp mailing list

Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8