IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

R Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com> Thu, 18 December 2008 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <opsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4E23A69F3; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4743A6A24 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LQDRoJY+XBJ7 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69B73A69E3 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 3so49310qwe.31 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:59:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=8Wg9CTa/ko1t88pYPm4UUWfnyiqACZJf+jq8iMblHzs=; b=OrjfXXbPEuk+U/LqcJ25EeV/WHF57I4IG36+l6VvUUtJ3lZ1gwRv4b3ro/lmCHxXK1 +jWpubBHtKnugo+y+CnPZzMjw/cdIWv0lA2VoNoGARAv5BIm6+FAyMyX1OgmOOrw9VCW TP9RNZFC9UXlCs0+748H48AsV9HkQ5h28SDW8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=MJDimR57E7aM/DRVklwENPJ9BAROrqo7sKQobxry/q5EUfzev7RybZv1Ih6ChDa97H brLcdvvibsROnD8/8DPHPEMWJUpfdi/Se/GG2kbUve9S4WCTnnz3aRFy/arWicHPeQRa eoscv1IXNwtD8QcOJeDoqgVQ6iCpvfR9YbEHw=
Received: by 10.214.181.20 with SMTP id d20mr1819690qaf.378.1229565596994; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.10.1.61? (67.111.52.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.111.52.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm4566636ywn.6.2008.12.17.17.59.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <6A3E6D7A-6475-4B5D-B3A9-F865D3133736@gmail.com>
From: R Atkinson <ran.atkinson@gmail.com>
To: opsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <92c950310812171716j63bb07d5s2dcbd270fd8173ec@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:59:55 -0500
References: <14198D76-AA32-4E02-9425-0700ED57B07B@gmail.com> <77ead0ec0812161759g4900bd98h6ad6c07bb0d81fe3@mail.gmail.com> <92c950310812171716j63bb07d5s2dcbd270fd8173ec@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org

On  17 Dec 2008, at 20:16, Glen Kent wrote:
>> No, it is not discussed in the document. The RFC you mention is an
>> Experimental RFC. The draft talks about "Issues with Existing
>> Cryptographic Mechanisms with Routing Protocols". We can discuss the
>> same however (though I would feel it may not exactly fit the draft).
>
> You dont need to - its not required.

You are formally declaring WG consensus ?
Curious.

Or were you expressing your opinion ?

> The draft is about the issues existing in the well known and widely
> used flavors of authentication as used in the current IGPs.

If the draft is a WG document, then the WG as a whole
needs to decide that question -- while following IETF
processes.

Yours,

Ran Atkinson
rja@extremenetworks.com

_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email