Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <83149989683.20030407152511@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes:
>Steve,
>
> Couple of things.
>
> 1. Security Considerations section missing :)

Now *that* is embarrassing...

>
> 2. I'm thinking--we're going to apply the variance procedure to the
>    BGP spec when it's before the IESG, not to TCP-MD5, though the
>    title and some parts of the abstract and Intro read as if it
>    was about moving TCP-MD5 to DS... Maybe change the title to
>    something like this--
>
>
>    Standards Maturity Variance Regarding BGP-4 specification and
>            the TCP MD5 Signature Option (RFC 2385)
>
>    --and also explain that normally one would want to push 2385 to
>    DS, but here's why it is not a good idea...
>
>    If we agree on this, I'd spend more time later to day to see how
>    the wording would need to be changed.

Sounds good.  "Send text" (phrase copyright Randy, I believe.)


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)