Re: [RPSEC] BGP session security requirement draft, -01
sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) Tue, 15 May 2007 14:07 UTC
Return-path: <rpsec-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Hnxgg-0007S0-0W; Tue, 15 May 2007 10:07:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnxge-0007M5-Jp
for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 10:07:36 -0400
Received: from ns1.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hnxgd-0004bc-D0
for rpsec@ietf.org; Tue, 15 May 2007 10:07:36 -0400
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id l4FE5bu5007823;
Tue, 15 May 2007 10:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pecan.tislabs.com(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap
(V6.0) id srcAAAwcairp; Tue, 15 May 07 10:05:33 -0400
Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005)
id 479813F463; Tue, 15 May 2007 10:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: mbehring@cisco.com, rpsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RPSEC] BGP session security requirement draft, -01
In-Reply-To: <XFE-AMS-331HfqR77bi000005a2@xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <20070515140413.479813F463@pecan.tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014
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
>Sandy commented that we need to move quickly on this draft, so keeping
>it "to the point" seems the right approach to me.
The need for speed was to keep ahead of the tcpm design team that is
working on some way to change or replace the TCP MD5 mechanism.
That isn't proving to be a problem. ;-{
--Sandy
_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
RPSEC@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
- [RPSEC] BGP session security requirement draft, -… Michael H. Behringer
- Re: [RPSEC] BGP session security requirement draf… Sandy Murphy