Re: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

Inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Tauber <tony.tauber@level3.com>
To: rpsec@ietf.org <rpsec@ietf.org>
Date: 10 December 2003 05:09
Subject: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

Yes, I believe that protocol specific work does belong in RPSEC.  The work
spans two distinct areas, routing and security, and so there is not one
clear, right answer.  But on balance I see the security considerations as
the harder to deal with, the one where greater specialist expertise is
needed,  that the security group is more likely to have the necessary
routing skills than the routing group will have adequate security skills.
So do the work in RPSEC.

>2) Should the RPSEC charter be amended to allow for the acceptance of
>   protocol-specific work?  (Removing the sentence below should do that.)
>
>   ++> It is also a non-goal at this point to produce new or change the
>   ++> current security mechanisms in the existing routing protocols.
>
>3) Should draft-convery-bgpattack-01.txt be accepted as a WG work item?
>
>4) Should draft-jones-OSPF-vuln-01.txt be accepted as a WG work item?
>
>(See meeting minutes at
http://ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/minutes/rpsec.htm
>for more details if desired.)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tony

Tom Petch, Network Consultant
nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec