IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended

Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 13 November 2006 18:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjgY8-0001mr-Us; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:52 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjgY7-0001mc-MG for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:51 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GjgY6-0001ib-CE for ospf@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:51 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2006 10:28:49 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,418,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="2209540:sNHT53737434"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kADISnnO020631; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:49 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kADISnDO005801; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:49 -0500
Received: from [10.82.208.5] ([10.82.208.5]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4558B95F.3060704@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:28:47 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Manav Bhatia <manav_bhatia06@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct file appended
References: <5g6uj4$1f5hn@sj-inbound-c.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5g6uj4$1f5hn@sj-inbound-c.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Nov 2006 18:28:48.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F8AC450:01C70751]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1730; t=1163442529; x=1164306529; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=acee@cisco.com; z=From:=20Acee=20Lindem=20<acee@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20IETF=2067=20OSPF=20WG=20Meeting=20minutes=20 -=20Correct=20file=20appended |Sender:=20 |To:=20Manav=20Bhatia=20<manav_bhatia06@yahoo.co.uk>; bh=SYcnwJ4+MFvEFCyWSC0ONL/aKgPfpwuVIM4n41I2bto=; b=hdXGljIDiZWr6HiWVLsmu6uHufMXEpJ9CDFUU7Npk+XVZY+yvrprqstG3Ng/CAWsbknruIUs GL6JHOvbZx1vitJGl8yTg8Q+kQUXnYrbuuP+kzmPGg3xjD+0vz+bdBck;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=acee@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: 'OSPF List' <ospf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

Updated...
Manav Bhatia wrote:
> Acee,
>
> The minutes missed out my replies.
>
>   
>> Presentation: Manav Bhatia - Crypto Requirements Document
>>     
>
>   
>> NULL, MS5, sha1, cryptographic - refs in this doc 
>>    more algorithms keep coming eg des was once must, now is should ot 
>> 	
>>    What doc must, should, - running doc as algorithms come and go 
>>    uses 2119 terms should+ = should may become must 
>> 		
>>    See slides and draft for specific requirements. 
>> 		
>>    Acee: "should not" wording is problematic for NULL and other 
>>    existing requirements.  
>>     
>
> Manav: NULL authentication is a "should NOT" in case an admin requires OSPF
> security.
>
>   
>> Russ white: shold may become a must vs. should+ (better to say
>> what is meant)
>>     
>
> Manav: We have used these additional RFC2119 terms since the earlier
> cryptographic implementation requirement RFCs 4305, 4307 have used a similar
> language.
>
> Cheers,
> Manav    
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:30 PM
>> To: OSPF List
>> Subject: [OSPF] IETF 67 OSPF WG Meeting minutes - Correct 
>> file appended 
>>
>> Here are the minutes from the 67th IETF OSPF WG meeting. Thanks
>> to Steve Nadas from Ericsson for taking them.
>>
>> There was quite a bit of dialog at the mike with respect to the
>> OSPF MANET direction. I've also appended Thomas Clausen's
>> jabber log. Please unicast corrections to me. IETF 67
>>
>> Please unicast any corrections to me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>     
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
>
>   

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email