Re: [tcpm] WGLC: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-10.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:32:17AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Ted Faber wrote:
>>> If the authors are cool with a pointer to 4953 for derivations, I am,
>>> too, but the final numbers should appear here as well.
>> Agreed - a summary statement and the final numbers or conclusions from
>> 4953 need to be contained in this doc.
> 
> Just to be clear, I don't have a preference, and apparently I wasn't
> quite clear enough on thst.
> 
> If the authors are determined to include the derivation here, that's
> fine with me, as it's fine with me to point off to 4953.  My only 2
> concerns are that the final figures be simplified in this draft and that
> the two documents agree(!).

IMO, the whole point of developing 4953 was to document the problem and
define its impact mathematically so that other RFCs could refer to it.

This doc certainly needs to refer to the problem and the resulting
analysis, but there's no utility in replicating the derivations in 4953.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjhAJQACgkQE5f5cImnZrsYVgCgoiGrFMcKiEKhl4BeBYZFF62p
QQwAn1eo5zf0uOmVh3QCW98AwbIFJ2zB
=1ZFH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm