Re: [RPSEC] RPsec not meeting in Prague

Sandy Murphy wrote:
>    o  In an environment where secured service is in the process of being
>       deployed a mechanism MUST exist to support a transition free of
>       coordinated, widespread service interruption.
>   
> OK?
>   
I was suggesting that the wording be a long the lines or requiring that
widespread (non-local?) or persistent outages not occur *specifically
because* of an incremental deployment scenario / state of partial
deployment.

Your wording above would seem to require that there not be an earth
quake in the bay area during deployment.   (i.e., doesn't make the point
of a casual relationship to  partial/incremental deployment).

Splitting hairs, I admit, but if folks think issues of incremental
deployment will be key, then worth be careful about the wording of  the
supposed  "requirement".
dougm

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