RREQ minutes

Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu> Tue, 04 April 1995 03:18 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08751; 3 Apr 95 23:18 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08747; 3 Apr 95 23:18 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20862; 3 Apr 95 23:18 EDT
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-21) id <AA01807>; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 20:06:38 -0700
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-17) id <AA11279>; Mon, 3 Apr 1995 20:06:35 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199504040306.AA11279@zephyr.isi.edu>
Subject: RREQ minutes
To: minutes@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 20:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: rreq@isi.edu
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2035

Hi,
	If there are no problems with these notes, I will submit them
	to  CNRI as the formal submission for the published RREQ notes.
	Corrections will be accepted through friday.
		-------------------------------------------
Router Requirements WG meeting  - April'95

Administrative Review:

	A brief review of the history of the working group was presented
	for the benefit of new-comers.  The final call for the internet-draft
	has gone out and we are within days of the close on last call.
	This meeting was to allow any final, face to face posing of any
	outstanding issues.

	Two were raised by the Security "mafia" (thier terms, not ours! :)

	- The desire to strengthen the wording on use of cryptographic
	  techniques in router configuration

	- The need to strengthen the wording on use of cryptographic
	  techniques, by routing protocols that have these features
	  available.

	The wording in the document was changed to strengthen the configuration
	section (although this is really a host function and should be
	addressed in the host requirements WG!!)

	The WG was concerned that a simple statment that "routing protocols
	should use better cryptio techniques" would lead to uninteroperable
	implementations.  We requested that the security folks create either
	an implementation profile or compliance statment to be inserted
	at some future time. The security folks present agreed to allow the
	document to proceed from internet draft to proposed standard with
	the revised wording to be inserted as the document proceeds from
	proposed to recommended.
	
	Fred will post the revised wording this week to the archives.
	We believe that with this minor change, the IESG should affirm this
	draft and advance it to proposed standard at the end of the current
	Last Call.

	We also noted the passing of Frank Kastenholtz as co-chair. His efforts
	as co-chair and document editor have been greatly appreciated and
	hope that these indulgences will reduce his torment in purgetory
	(formerly known as the IESG :)


--bill