RE: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

FOlks, favor I really think we deliver NAP to the IESG and to the
public.  Could all those who find subtle disagreements go offline and
come to consensus back to the WG.  I think all are in agreement but this
spec is very useful to the market can we please ship it.

thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Chown
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:00 AM
> To: 'v6ops@ops.ietf.org '
> Subject: Re: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
> 
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:08:44PM +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> > 
> > The comments contain a suggestion that 
> > draft-chown-port-scanning-implications should be published 
> as an RFC - 
> > it is referenced both here (in what I consider to be a 
> Normative way) 
> > and it is relevant to the security overview also.  Does 
> anybody else 
> > support this?
> 
> For info, this can be found here:
> 
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-chown-v6ops-port-scan
> ning-implications-01.txt
> 
> It's one of those 'kind of obvious' texts, but has received 
> good comments
> while it was live.
> 
> I would be happy to revive it, or work with 
> Gunter/Fred/Elwyn/whoever to
> merge it into the NAP text itself.   There are pros and cons 
> either way.
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>