RE: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

Hi,

Same here, I think you need to be specific to what protocols are in scope.

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dondeti, Lakshminath [BL60:1A14:EXCH] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:17 PM
> To: Tony Tauber
> Cc: rpsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Consensus calls
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am just curious about item 2 below.  Do you mean just protocol 
> specific threats and requirements, or solutions as well?
> 
> Lakshminath
> 
> 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?
> >
> >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
> >RPSEC@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPSEC mailing list
> RPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec
> 