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

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

Hi Ken,

On 29 Jan 2008, at 19:15, ken carlberg wrote:

>
> 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.

Agreed.

For what it's worth, (at least) one of the authors feels:
	- that the topic of draft-behringer applicability of keying methods  
to RSVP is a significant aspect of RSVP security, and
	- that in turn, RSVP security is an important topic and a  
responsibility of the TSVWG,
	- and therefore, discussion of keying method applicability should  
reflect WG views and not just a few individuals view
	- If the document needs to be amended to reflect other WG members,  
this is a good thing

Francois

> But if the authors feel changes will dilute the current points made  
> in the document, then it should stay an individual submission.
>
> -ken
>
>
>