[Trust-router] Considering delaying BOF Request

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497B821F8F12 for <trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JEi5UpM++Org for <trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2D621F8F15 for <trust-router@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D0C2057B for <trust-router@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:05:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W0qSakkLg5SS for <trust-router@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:05:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (unknown [10.1.10.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <trust-router@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:05:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 24C33440A; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: trust-router@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:08:18 -0400
Message-ID: <tslwqr0gu1p.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [Trust-router] Considering delaying BOF Request
X-BeenThere: trust-router@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "ABFAB Trust Router discussion list." <trust-router.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trust-router>, <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trust-router>
List-Post: <mailto:trust-router@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trust-router>, <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:08:25 -0000

folks.
There hasn't been a lot of discussion on the list so far. Some of that
has been caused by us. We've been busy trying to test some aspects of
our documents with early implementation rather than discussing the
protocol.

So far it doesn't seem like there's been enough discussion or interest
to put together a BOF request for IETF 86.  we're still moving forward
on trying to get implementation and deployment experience with the
technology. We're still interested in standardization including making
changes we'd need to make to comply with an eventual standard.

We're interested in thoughts on delaying the BOF request?
Does that seem like a good idea?

Regardless, we will continue to use this list for any discussion of the
protocol or general use cases and the moonshot-community list to discuss
our implementation.

--Sam