Re: [Tsvwg] Adopting draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying as WG item?

[Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[e-mail]>]

On 31 Jan 2008, at 16:14, Lars Eggert wrote:

> On 2008-1-30, at 20:32, ext Francois Le Faucheur IMAP wrote:
>> It is not that you are saying that TSVWG should not influence  
>> MSEC, but rather you are pointing out that as per IETF procedures,  
>> publishing an Informational Track document (even as WG document)  
>> does not have the official weight to influence MSEC (and therefore  
>> should not be understood/expected to do so).
>> Is this right?
>
> Yes. An informational RFC that surveys the solution space does just  
> that.

So, i am with you now.

>
> If it comes with a TSVWG consensus behind it, it establishes that  
> TSVWG is of the opinion that the characterization of the solution  
> space in the RFC is correct (rather than just representing the  
> authors' opinion, as an individual submission with the RFC Editor  
> would.)

I think this is what we want for draft-behringer.

Thanks

Francois

>
> MSEC or some other WG is free to refer to that RFC to help them  
> decide which option in the solution space is most applicable to  
> their particular use case, of course. But an Informational RFC  
> can't recommend one solution as the TSVWG-preferred approach,  
> especially if that approach isn't an Internet standard.
>
> Lars