RE: [iesg-secretary #7043] draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-06.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Jackie, 

Please not that the revision is now 07. i.e.
   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-07.txt

Pls announce that this was approved by IESG as PS.

By the way, I did not yet see the announcement for
   draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-02
as informational either. Is there a problem with that
one that I am unaware of?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqueline Hargest [mailto:jhargest@foretec.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 13 mei 2003 14:32
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Subject: Re: [iesg-secretary #7043]
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-06.txt
> 
> 
> Your request #7043 was resolved by jhargest:
> 
> Bert,
> 
> Yes, we will wait to announce this document.  If you would be 
> kind enough to please send another request when it is ready, we 
> will be happy to announce this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jackie
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> >To: "Iesg-Secretary (E-mail)" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> >Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-06.txt
> 
> Jackie, 
> although this change in vote from Steve clears the doc for
> announcement, can you pls hold on that for a few days.
> I expect yet one more rev that will address a few nits
> raised by other ADs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> > Sent: maandag 12 mei 2003 0:41
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; Dimitrios Pendarakis;
> > iesg-secretary@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-06.txt 
> > 
> > 
> > In message 
> > <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155018B8809@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
> > om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
> > >Steve, since the email exhcnage below, the authors have made
> > >changes to the security considerations section.
> > >
> > >Not sure if you did indeed check them and if so which (if any)
> > >issue(s) are still a concern. I tried to evaluate this email
> > >against the current text (in rev 06), but I am not sure if
> > >it indeed does or does not address the concern you raised below.
> > 
> > I'm happy with -06.  Please change me to a no-ob
> > 
> > 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> > 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of 
> > "Firewalls" book)
> > 
> >
>