Subject: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:56:02 -0300

Folks,

I have just read the minutes from the last IETF meeting, and it says 
tcpsecure has been through WGLC. I don't seem to recall the WGLC for 
this document, and have checked the online mailing-list archives, and 
have not been able to find the WGLC.

I'm sure this is just me not being able to find the WGLC in the 
mailing-list archives (unfortunately, my local mail archive is in 
some backup I cannot access right now).

Would anybody remind me when the WGLC of this doc was issued?

Thanks!

Kind regards,

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

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

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:11:36 -0400

> tcpsecure has been through WGLC.

That is because that is what I said. :-)

However, you're right that I mis-spoke.  With all the drafts we have in
various stages I just botched this.  

The status is ...

  + We have nailed down the recommendation levels for the various
    mechanisms.

  + Those levels need worked into the document.

  + Then it seems that all outstanding issues have been taken care of
    and we can do WGLC.

So, in other words it seems "WGLC is imminent" is the better summary.

Thanks for catching this bit of confusion.

allman

---

From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:42:51 -0700

Mark,
    I will go ahead and change the document to reflect the
recommendation levels suggested and also would incorporate the
applicable comments received.  

However, there is one item (which I have brought up earlier) which needs
some help to be resolved. We need to mention in the document, the
reasoning for the chosen levels for each mechanism, currently it is not
clear and it makes the document incomplete.

for eg, in particular:- some of the reasons why data mitigation was
singled out and classified under MAY is because 

"it needs extra variables to implement this and it is not as simple as
the other 2 mechanisms" 
"even with AS in place data mitigation is a MAY because originally it
was "decided" to tag it as MAY.

I am not sure we can put such a verbiage (like the one listed above) in
the document.  My suggestion is something like "it was felt that the
data mitigation is a MAY beause it is harder to tear down the connection
compared to the other 2 mechanisms OR in other words additional
complexity and conditions required to cause harm when compared to the
other two"  

I am open to suggestions. 

Thanks,
-Anantha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Allman
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:12 AM
> To: Fernando Gont
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [tcpm] A question on tcpsecure & meeting minutes
> 
> 
> However, you're right that I mis-spoke.  With all the drafts 
> we have in various stages I just botched this.  
> 
> The status is ...
>