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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

On 2008-1-29, at 19:25, ext Brian Weis wrote:
> I certainly agree that the action of TSVWG accepting draft-behringer- 
> tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying as a WG document can't dictate any  
> particular action to MSEC. But such a TWVWG document describing a  
> group security model for RSVP does provide MSEC with the basis for  
> considering protocol work that increases the overall level of  
> security when group keys are used.

Agreed. MSEC (or any other WG) is free to take the contents of that  
RFC into account when determining which solution options best fit  
their use case.

> 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.

Drafts fail to see WG adoption all the time, for all sorts of reasons.  
I don't think that if draft-behringer would fail to see TSVWG adoption  
this conclusion could be drawn from that decision.

For example, a perfectly valid reason to not adopt an Informational- 
RFC-to-be would be for the WG to agree that adoption wouldn't improve  
the document much, and that WG cycles would be better spent elsewhere.  
This is approximately what happened with draft-sarolahti-tsvwg- 
crosslayer, which is a survey not too unlike draft-behringer.

Lars