RE: [MSEC] TESLA documents

Hi Lakshminath,

I would support option 2, assumed that the draft will be revised. As far
as I can remember there was an issue, which needs to be corrected. At
least, for the TESLA MIKEY Bootstrapping we included something in the 48
hours.

Regards
	Steffen 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondeti@qualcomm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:42 PM
> To: msec@ietf.org
> Cc: Russ Housley; canetti@csail.mit.edu
> Subject: [MSEC] TESLA documents
> 
> Folks,
> 
> It looks like we need to think through the TESLA document 
> organization a bit more:
> 
> ++++++++++++
> Option 1:
> 
> RFC 4082 (with Errata)  --  TESLA introduction
> 
> RFC 4383                     --  TESLA-SRTP
> 
> Revive draft-ietf-msec-tesla-spec (Proposed Standard)   which 
> is currently dead
> 
> Write a new draft draft-ietf-msec-mesp (old expired draft) -- 
> this would be similar to 4383, but for IPsec.
> ++++++++++++++++
> 
> +++++++++++++
> Option 2:
> 
> Revise RFC 4082     --  TESLA Specification
> 
> Keep RFC 4383 as is
> 
> Write draft-ietf-msec-ipsec-tesla
> +++++++++++++++
> 
> I think Option 2 is most logical and has the fewest TESLA-related 
> RFCs.  I would like to hear others' opinions.
> 
> thanks,
> Lakshminath
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MSEC mailing list
> MSEC@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec
> 

_______________________________________________
MSEC mailing list
MSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec