Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Consensus calls

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:08:59 -0600

> 1) Should
> draft-puig-rpsec-generic-requirements-01.txt be
> accepted as  a WG work item?

yes. The draft may be incomplete. But, we should
remember it is work-in-progress. It is hard to get
generic requirements draft complete at first shot.

> 2) Should the RPSEC charter be amended to allow for
> the acceptance of protocol-specific work? 

yes. I strongly support for protocol-specific requirements 
work. It can be integrated or can provide specific input 
to the generic requirements document at a later stage.

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Emanuele Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:40:24 -0500

Hello,

I strongly agree with Ayyasamy and on top of that if one were to search 
for a definitive analysis on routing protocol threats and attacks today 
there is no clear authoritative place. So, it would be nice, and make 
sense, that IETF would provide a security analysis for the routing 
protocols it owns, so that people could find this information fast and 
be confident that these documents have been reviewed and approved by IETF.
In the end, I am simply hoping that this dispute between central 
solution (RPSec) and individual WGs does not end up delaying (or 
canceling) any work for routing protocol specific analysis.
In that respect I think this matter should be addressed in RPSec given 
the current state of things. For example what WG should take care of RIP 
security analysis? How are we going to guarantee a consistency across 
these documents if the are done in separate WGs?

Just some thoughts,

Emanuele