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

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:34:39 -0800

These were the items I took away from or found in the previous two
sections of the minutes please everyone, but especially Ruddinger
Richard and Fernando please comment on anything I might have missed that
we need to pose and answer on the list. deadline for submission of the
minutes is the 19th so we have a couple days still.

* draft-gont-opsec-ip-security-01

	Test consensus on list for accepting as a working group document

	Preference for desired outcome, informational or BCP?

	Venues for cross area review, where should we socialize it
	
		Are there specifica areas that should get special
		attention?

* draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00

	Are we concluded that feedback on structure provided during the
	wg meeting was sufficient to proceed?

	Seperate v6 document or not

* draft-ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues-00

	Does this document need to address pim-sm or rsvp

	Other substantive comments?

	Is it ready for last call after another rev?

* draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requirements-03

	Accept as a working group document?

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

	change of title (to include authentication)

* draft-kumari-blackhole-urpf-02

	Accept as a working group document?

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

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:15:03 -0300

>                 Are there specifica areas that should get special

I believe the high-order bit for action items relevant to this 
document is to test for consensus on list for accepting this document 
as a working group document. I guess that once we are working on this 
document, we can more formally ask for cross-area review.
This does not contradict with what you posted... I'm just saying that 
we should probably pursue the action items for this document in the 
order you stated them. That is, first check for consensus for 
accepting this doc as a wg item, then discuss preference for the 
desired outcome, and then discuss how we could implement the cross 
area review.

>         wg meeting was sufficient to proceed?

I had asked this one the mailing-list already, and the feedback I got 
at the Minneapolis meeting didn't argue for a change in the structure 
of the document. So the document will continue "as is".

>         Seperate v6 document or not

I will got back to the comments I had received on the v6 stuff. 
However, as I mentioned at the meeting, the high order bit was to 
agree on the structure of the document, as this would affect both the 
v4 and the possible v6 stuff. I will come back with some concrete 
proposals/alternatives for the v6 stuff asap, now that we have agreed 
on the most basic issue that was the structure of the whole document.

Thanks!

Kind regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:32:13 -0800

Fernando Gont wrote:
> I believe the high-order bit for action items relevant to this document
> is to test for consensus on list for accepting this document as a
> working group document. I guess that once we are working on this

agree

> This does not contradict with what you posted... I'm just saying that we
> should probably pursue the action items for this document in the order
> you stated them. That is, first check for consensus for accepting this
> doc as a wg item, then discuss preference for the desired outcome, and
> then discuss how we could implement the cross area review.
> 
> 
> 
> I had asked this one the mailing-list already, and the feedback I got at
> the Minneapolis meeting didn't argue for a change in the structure of
> the document. So the document will continue "as is".

my opinion as well

> I will got back to the comments I had received on the v6 stuff. However,
> as I mentioned at the meeting, the high order bit was to agree on the
> structure of the document, as this would affect both the v4 and the
> possible v6 stuff. I will come back with some concrete
> proposals/alternatives for the v6 stuff asap, now that we have agreed on
> the most basic issue that was the structure of the whole document.

I believe the question is does much of what we could address for icmp6
carry the same weight of operational experience that we have with ipv4
icmp messages?