[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Subject: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 13:57:14 -0800
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20030404200658.2A1067B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
References: <20030404200658.2A1067B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>

>>Well, back then.... when 1771 came out, it cannot have depended
>>on RFC2385... or so I think... :-)

> True, though I'm not certain when the code was actually first 
> deployed...

1771 has a protocol-internal authentication mechanism that never
got implemented. TCP-MD5 was first released in 11.2 that was out
in 1996. 1771 is dated 1995, and 2385 is 1998.

> Anyway -- Alex tells me that 1771 is recycling at Draft, and that this 
> process has snagged because of 2385.

Correct.

> We agreed, I think, that a waiver 
> supported by RFC was the proper procedure.  I'm trying to figure out 
> proper wording changes to my draft; suggestions welcome.

I'll read the draft today.
Thanks, Steve.

Alex

References:
- Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
  - From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>

Prev by Date: Draft Minutes of April 3, 2003 Telechat
Next by Date: standards interdependency draft
Previous by thread: Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft
Next by thread: RE: BGP vs. 2385 draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread