Subject: Re: [RPSEC] issue: coverage

From: Sandy Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:24:32 -0500 (EST)

>The _only_ way to infer this information is to attach a policy outside the 
>information in the update (or to ban aggregation from the Internet as a 
>whole).

So - should we be considering adding requirements about communicating
policy to our list?  (Wasn't there a suggestion once of a mechanism that
did communicate policy around?)

--Sandy

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

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:46:36 -0500

I'm a bit behind, so I apologize if this was discussed in more detail 
already.

> did communicate policy around?)

While such things are in the realm of possibility, I don't believe
they're in the realm of practicality.  I suggest that we shouldn't
be putting a policy communications mechanism in at the moment.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies