Re: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

At 5:08 +0000 12/10/03, 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?

No. This document is a hodge podge. It mixes the authors's solution 
ideas with  requirements statements. It is very uneven in its 
treatment of topics, and has numerous errors, e.g., characterizing 
anti-replay as a crypto mechanism. It is not a generic requirements 
document, as the title suggests.

>
>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.

No. I believe the current WG is not appropriately constituted to take 
on this task.

>3) Should draft-convery-bgpattack-01.txt be accepted as a WG work item?

I think an attack tree is useful as part of a broader analysis of 
security concerns. But since I do not believe that this WG, as 
currently constituted, should pursue protocol-specific tasks, I would 
not recommend accepting this document.

>4) Should draft-jones-OSPF-vuln-01.txt be accepted as a WG work item?

no, see my response to #2 above.

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