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

[ken carlberg <[e-mail]>]

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