Re: [sidr] [fixed] Confirming that the last interim reflects working group consensus

Chris,

	I think that you and Sandy mentioned that
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats and draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats should
be done before
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol but it was just by email, I believe.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05078.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05080.html

	I was not in the interim, so I do not know if you discussed the issue
there again.

Regards,
as


On 11/10/2012 14:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>>> i had thought there was agreement at the last interim that
>>> threats/requirements needed to get baked before the protocol doc move
>>> to the next step in the process.
>>
>> While I am happy to hear this, it's not clear to me from the proceedings available, can you please provide a pointer?
> 
> sadly I can't find the notes on the interwebs... I'll see if we/chairs
> forgot to post them, or my search-foo with webcrawler is crap.
> 
> I do note that there's a new revision ('new' as of 9/14-ish?) of threats:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats>
> 
> requirements is still june-only:
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats>
> 
> Did you get a chance (I think you had some questions/comments/etc
> outstanding) to review -threats since 9/14?
> 
> -chris
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>