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

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

On 30 Jan 2008, at 16:30, Lars Eggert wrote:

> On 2008-1-30, at 17:06, ext Francois Le Faucheur IMAP wrote:
>> Why is it so important to ensure that the TSVWG does not send any  
>> indication to MSEC that it would be useful to deploy a group  
>> keying solution for RSVP?
>
> A successful consensus call to adopt draft-behringer with the goal  
> of publishing it as an Informational RFC simply does not have the  
> side effect of indicating to MSEC or anyone else that TSVWG  
> recommends draft-weis.

I think we have already clearly established (and re-established and  
re-re-established) that "draft-behringer is NOT tied to draft-weis- 
gdoi-for-rsvp", so I assume in the above you meant "that TSVWG  
recommends use of group keying for RSVP" (instead of "that TSVWG  
recommends use of draft-weis").


But I think I got you, this time.
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?

Thanks

Francois



>
> Lars
>
>> Is this because you know of better solutions to achieve automated  
>> key management for RSVP?
>> If yes, can you share them so that we can discuss those?
>> If not, what exactly would be so bad if TSVWG was to document the  
>> fact that group keying would be useful for RSVP and if MSEC was to  
>> interpret that as a cue to develop a solution for it?
>