[RPSEC] Consensus calls

[Tony Tauber <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec