Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I'm only the document shepherd. My feeling is that we are raising
> the hurdle step by step for the KARP - initiated RFCs, the first
> was comparatively smooth, now we are trying to put an 18 months
> effort (individual draft to RFC) in front of approving something
> that is comparatively simple and seen as raising LDP to the same
> security as the other routing protocols.

Well, 18 months is an extremely pessimistic time frame, so let's step back:
This isn't the first time we've come here, so it's well known what
needs to be documented.  Stephen and Manav: how long do you really
think it would take to write this document up and have it ready for
last call?  How much real iteration on the document is likely to be
needed?

It seems to me that if Manav should write something up and pass it by
Stephen, you could have something that's pretty much ready by the time
Manav posts it as -00.  Post to a few appropriate lists for comments,
post a -01, maybe a -02, then last call it.  That can't be more than a
few weeks.  Then we have a four-week last call, another week in IESG
Evaluation.  We ought to be able to get this from inception to the RFC
Editor queue in 2 months, maybe 3 tops.

Is that really a serious problem?  And that will close this issue for
good, so we don't have to keep having the discussion.

I understand the response that we often have, that we don't want to
hold *this* document hostage for something broader that needs to be
done.  And that's valid as far as it goes... but when we see ourselves
saying it continually about the same topic, something needs to be done
or we'll never get to fixing the broader issue.

Barry


Barry