Re: BGP vs. 2385 draft

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Steve,

 The revised text:
 http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/draft-bellovin-tcpmd5app-00-rev1.txt

 The htmlwdiff:
 http://psg.com/~zinin/ietf/variance.diff.html

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Monday, April 7, 2003, 6:09:37 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 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)