Subject: revised PILC agenda for IETF-51

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:26:22 -0400

Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2001 
Meeting Time: 1415 - 1515 (one hour) 
Meeting Location: 
  Hilton London Metropole 
  225 Edgware Road 
  London, United Kingdom W2 1JU 
  http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-51.html 

Agenda 
====== 

0. Agenda bashing 

1. Working group status 

2. Discussion of docs in progress

  draft-ietf-pilc-asym-05.txt 
    Is current structure acceptable?
    Is draft ready for wg last call?
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-05.txt

  draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-06.txt
    Is security considerations section acceptable?
    Is draft ready for wg last call?
   
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-06.txt

  draft-ietf-pilc-link-arq-issues-02.txt 
    Is draft ready for wg last call?
   
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-link-arq-issues-02.txt

  draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-03.txt 
    Discussion of issues raised on list during wg last call.
    (text on bandwidth-delay product, connection splitting, 
    applications, etc)
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-03.txt

3. Other

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:40:24 -0400

Sorry I can't be at the meeting (travel restrictions), although my colleague 
Donald Eastlake will be.  I'll also be on vacation next week.

>     Is security considerations section acceptable?
No.  

First, I would encourage the chairs to test whether there is really 
significant support in the working group for the view that: if the Links draft 
recommends that subnets not have any kind of protection for user data, subnet 
designers will remove such support, and end-to-end mechanisms will be used.  
In my opinion, this view will be rightly ignored by subnet designers including 
IEEE 802.11 (including 802.11i) and thus will detract from the credibility of 
the draft.

Second, there is the matter of "editorial improvements" that fail to correctly 
capture, and indeed condescend to, the view that subnet protections are 
necessary and sometimes sufficient.  I'd prefer we had a single 
recommendation.  But absent that, I would like the opportunity to provide text 
to be included, subject to group consensus, but not to arbitrary modification 
by the editor. 

>     Is draft ready for wg last call?
See answer to previous question.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:09:18 +0100 (BST)

> >     Is security considerations section acceptable?

Well, why not create a separate 'advice for subnet designers on subnet
security issues' draft, then?

Thrashing the material accurately describing your view out in a
separate short draft (can't be too much work from all the security
material already provided in previous back-and-forths on the list)
would state your position clearly, and would also render your
editorial complaint moot.

L.

> See answer to previous question.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>