Subject: Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 3 (action items)

From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:51:00 +0530

At 11:34 p.m. 13/12/2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> * draft-ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues-00
>
> Does this document need to address pim-sm or rsvp

I'd personally like to keep it restricted to routing protocols. Vishwas and I had pointed out certain problems in BFD crypto mechanisms on the BFD mailing list, and there was a suggestion to include the same in this draft, but I would like to keep this restricted to the existing list.

> 
> Other substantive comments?
> 
> Is it ready for last call after another rev?

I'd like to hear from the WG members on what they'd like to see added/removed from this draft.

>
> * draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requirements-03
>
> Accept as a working group document?

We have posted a revised version based on the comments that we had received during the meet and on the list and would like to move the draft ahead.

> 
> Issue about language must- should+ etc (proposed change has
> circulated already)

Yes.

> 
> change of title (to include authentication)

I'm not sure I understand this?

Cheers, Manav

_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:34:51 -0800

> I'm not sure I understand this?

richard graveman said the following at the mic:

Rich
	This is pretty much on target, I agree with the chair, that
	there are a number of little things we can comment on. I would
	suggest that the word authentication get up in the title because
	it just says cryptographic protection,  becuase it only deals
	with authentication integrity. there are comments in some of
	these protocols about the need (or lack) of need for
	confidentiality that I reject out of hand because the need for
	it is a function of the operational enviroment not the
	implmentors view of the protocol. if you look in the ospf v3
	spec it says hey, we recomend you do confidentiality because
	it's easy, whereas in these other specs it isn't so we don't. I
	reject that chain of logic.