AW: [Tsvwg] Adopting draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeyingas WG item?

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

I believe that the document should become a working group item. 
The side discussions we had were more about the next step that happens after the analysis (namely about the solution details).

I will try my best to post some comments for draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying either during this week or beginning of next week. 

Ciao
Hannes
  
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: ext ken carlberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 20:16
> An: Brian Weis
> Cc: ext Magnus Westerlund; RJ Atkinson; tsvwg list IETF
> Betreff: Re: [Tsvwg] Adopting 
> draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeyingas WG item?
> 
> 
> On Jan 29, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Brian Weis wrote:
> 
> > On the other hand, rejecting it sends a message to MSEC 
> that the use  
> > of group security isn't particularly valuable for RSVP and 
> so there  
> > isn't much point in doing addition protocol work to make the group  
> > security model more secure.
> 
> i think that's reading to much into the original question of whether  
> the document should be a working group item or an individual 
> submission.
> 
> my feeling is that part of the on-line discussion has drifted away  
> from a more fundamental question of whether or not the draft 
> document  
> is one that requires _group_ consensus.  Put another way, do the  
> authors feel the perspectives/issues brought up on this 
> thread foster  
> a need to add or change existing text?  Or, do the authors 
> (chairs, or  
> others) feel that the document speaks for itself and can be 
> sidelined  
> and weakened by issues raised by others?  if the former, then it  
> should be a wg item.  if the latter, then it should stay as an  
> individual submission.  And keep in mind, an individual 
> submission is  
> still constructive and reference point for the community.
> 
> My personal opinion is that the document would benefit from 
> consensus  
> input given the points raised by others on this thread.  But if the  
> authors feel changes will dilute the current points made in the  
> document, then it should stay an individual submission.
> 
> -ken
> 
> 
> 
>