For TSV & SEC ADs: Fwd: Re: BGP as Draft vs. RFC 2385

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Allison, Jon, Steve, Russ-
Please look at this.
-- 
Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>, iesg@ietf.org
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 1:46:56 PM
Subject: BGP as Draft vs. RFC 2385

===8<==============Original message text===============
Does this (leaving it as BGP specific and adding an AS)
sound good to SEC and TSV ADs?

--
Alex

Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 1:12:12 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:


> --On 19. mars 2003 12:53 -0800 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> wrote:

>> In other words, TCP-MD5 as a separate security mechanism
>> taken out of the routing context looks behind and shouldn't
>> be pushed to along the STD track. However, when considered
>> within the routing context, it does make sense.

> Put an applicability statement in the document that says exactly this.


===8<===========End of original message text===========