Re: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

Hi,

I am just curious about item 2 below.  Do you mean just protocol 
specific threats and requirements, or solutions as well?

Lakshminath

Tony Tauber wrote:

>Folks,
>
>At the meeting in Minneapolis, the sense of the room was that there
>was positive support for these proposals:
>
>1) Should draft-puig-rpsec-generic-requirements-01.txt be accepted as
>   a WG work item?
>
>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?
>
>Please respond with your opinions.
>
>(See meeting minutes at http://ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/minutes/rpsec.htm
>for more details if desired.)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tony
>
>_______________________________________________
>RPSEC mailing list
>RPSEC@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
>
>  
>

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