Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt]

[Tony Tauber <[e-mail]>]

Ok, folks, the objection timer has run out so we can consider
draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt now to be an RPSEC WG
work item.

Thanks to Michael and we look forward to the next revision!

Tony

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 08:03:00AM -0800, Tony Tauber wrote:
> OK, seems there's some consensus for adopting this draft as a WG
> work item.  Please express any opposition in the next eight days
> (by COB 11/27).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tony
> 
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:12:51AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > That was my impression as well (that the document falls into the scope of 
> > the WG, under the condition you noted)
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> > Michael H. Behringer wrote:
> >> Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next. 
> >> My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in scope 
> >> of the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are 
> >> handled by referring to the Bellovin draft. (Once we have defined that the 
> >> subject is in scope for the WG, then there is of course a lot more work to 
> >> be done - thanks for the feedback received). Is this correct? Do we have a 
> >> consensus on this? Michael
> >> At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote:
> >>> At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote:
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a
> >>>>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs
> >>>>>> being worked on in the Transport area.
> >>>>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on
> >>>>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing
> >>>>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP
> >>>>> transport requirements.
> >>>> Two questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. What does the rest of the WG think about this?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements would
> >>>>>  be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG.
> >>>> This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM docs
> >>>> contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requirements?
> >>> I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for 
> >>> point-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the 
> >>> work being done in the Transport area.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the
> >>>> direction to go?
> >>> I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better 
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> RPSEC mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> >>> ?)??%?On?A1?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPSEC mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPSEC mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPSEC mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec


_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec