Subject: [RPSEC] Requirements Subgroup Volunteers

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:29:22 -0500 (EST)

Hi folks,

As we're closing in on the finalization of the merged "Generic
Threats to Routing Protocols" draft (to be posted soon), we have to
get moving on the "Generic Requirements" draft.

Some volunteers are needed to help put this all together and Russ
had the idea, which seems reasonable on the face of it, to form a
"technical subgroup" of perhaps six or eight people to work through
the development of the Requirements draft.

Who would like to work on this thing and can really dedicate some
cycles to it?  Please reply either to the list or to Russ and me
privately.  If there are concerns with this approach or you'd like to
sugggest an alternative, send via the same paths as above.

Thanks,

Tony

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

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:01:55 +0100 (CET)

> sugggest an alternative, send via the same paths as above.

You guys have more experience with this, so tell me if I'm wrong, but...
what exactly do we gain by working in a 6 - 8 person group rather than
the "entire" working group/list? Obvouisly a small group needs to take
point but I'm thinking more 1 - 2 people than 6 - 8 here.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:38:50 -0500

> point but I'm thinking more 1 - 2 people than 6 - 8 here.

Not to speak for the WG chairs, but sometimes a focus group can
accomplish a lot of the broad details of spec work in a shorter period
of time.  Once this has been accomplished, the focus group disbands
and the general WG can get the details ironed out.  If the WG 
decides that the focus group had missed basic things, either the WG
can take over the work, or another focus group can be convened in
order to attempt to incorporate the concerns.

Note that those who voice concerns are often asked to be part of the
focus groups. :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: RajKumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:13:33 +0530

Hi Tony,
I would like to volunteer.

Regards,
Rajkumar

---

From: Jean-Jacques Puig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:42:03 +0100

> sugggest an alternative, send via the same paths as above.

I would like too volonteer too.
(I surely have some cycles for this and it is directly linked to my
studies)

--
Jean-Jacques

---

From: Marco Aime <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:33:48 +0100

As members of TORSEC (i.e. the Computer and Network Security Group at
the Polythecnic of Turin, Italy - http://security.polito.it), we'd like
to volunteer to your call.

Two of us will actually work directly on the RPSEC task:

- Marco Domenico Aime - PhD Student - main research interests &
   competencies: network security (current research activity is focused
on
   security requirements in wireless networks, mainly 802.11-based ad-hoc
   networks), symmetric and asymmetric applied cryptography

- Corrado Derenale - PhD Student - main research interests &
   competencies: network security (current research activity is focused
on
   security requirements in IPv6 routing architecture), public-key
   certificate based systems

We are currently involved in the EU funded project "6net" in the
context of routing protocol security for IPv6 networks and our research
activity is heavily focused on RPSEC topic.

We are planning to dedicate, as a whole, a minimum of 30 man-hours per
month directly to the RPSEC activity.

I'm looking forward reading your answer.

Best regards,

Marco Aime

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marco AIME
Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica
Politecnico di Torino
Addr: Via Cardinal Massaia 83, Torino, Italy
Tel: +39 011 22102-44
Fax: +39 011 22102-29
Mail: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
------------------------------------------------------------------