Re: [RPSEC] Charter and Meeting Agenda

sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) Wed, 28 February 2007 17:52 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMSz3-0006Ej-6i; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:52:57 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMSz1-0006Bq-Lp for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:52:55 -0500
Received: from sentry.gw.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HMSz0-0007Ic-Fg for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:52:55 -0500
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id l1SHonkN025258; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pecan.tislabs.com(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAARBaimX; Wed, 28 Feb 07 12:49:59 -0500
Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005) id DC9BA3F422; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:48:56 -0500 (EST)
To: mbehring@cisco.com, riw@cisco.com, rpsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Charter and Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <XFE-AMS-332Jc0xvlUQ00000423@xfe-ams-332.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <20070228174856.DC9BA3F422@pecan.tislabs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:48:56 -0500 (EST)
From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: sandy@tislabs.com
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

Russ White wrote:
[...]
>o P-2-P security requirements for BGP: This was to provide some cover
>and thinking on the various TCP auth mechanisms to replace MD5 that are
>currently being considered. We need, I believe, a volunteer to
>author/edit this, and get it moving.

It should be noted that the tcpm working group has adopted the action
of working on a replacement to TCP MD5.  A design team, I'm told, is
being assembled and should be announced RSN, like maybe this week.
The intent is to meld the two most promising existing suggestions.

So if we are setting requirements, and they are starting work on the
protocol, we'd better get going pretty fast.  Some coordination with
the tcpm chairs seems like it might be in order.

--Sandy

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