Re: [RPSEC] [OSPF] [sidr] Authentication for OSPFv3

sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) Wed, 01 October 2008 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rpsec-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rpsec-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rpsec-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEEC3A6C72; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rpsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED403A6A32; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ddfk6jL8o0TY; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (nutshell.tislabs.com [192.94.214.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B5D28C159; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id m8UGbaHB016363; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nodnsquery(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAmAaq9F; Tue, 30 Sep 08 12:37:36 -0400
Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 558D13F46F; Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:36:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: acee@redback.com, vishwas.ietf@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0809300842i200798d5ic45f7996a19d57d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20080930163604.558D13F46F@pecan.tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:36:04 -0400
From: sandy@tislabs.com
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:57:10 -0700
Cc: msec@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, rpsec@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, rcallon@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] [OSPF] [sidr] Authentication for OSPFv3
X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements <rpsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/rpsec>
List-Post: <mailto:rpsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec>, <mailto:rpsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org

By the way, to everyone who sees this message, the mail chain is really
broken.  Ed's message did not get to all the wg lists on his message,
and I got several "too many recipients" errors on my reply.  If you look
at the mail archives for the various wg, not any of them have caught all
the messages that have been send.

I think the secdir archive got most of the messages (except the one that
Dave Ward cut down to just the rpsec list :-)), but it is not a public
list.

I'm not even sure that Ed, who originally posed the question, is seeing
the exchange.  (Ed's message was attached to my reply, if you saw that.)

I was able to push out the messages that got trapped for the sidr list,
but if any other wg chairs could do their bit, maybe the conversation
will be less fractured.

Or maybe we should just all choose one list to do the conversation.

--Sandy
_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec