Subject: Re: [Idr] [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review

From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:47:28 +0000

Hi Tom,

Good question.

Added idr and grow for their feedback on this work.

Reason for OPSEC is as it deals with operational security on BGP deployments. If general consensus is that other WG is more appropriate, then that is ok for me also. I will leave that to the IAD's to decide.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 07 August 2012 11:54
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:51 AM

Dear all,

As mentioned during the OPSEC WG meeting, the following 2 drafts will in
3 weeks be considered for WG documents, after a call for feedback on the email list. During the WG meeting it became clear that not that many people read the documents until now.

Please read drafts:

2)      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jdurand-bgp-security-01

<tp>
Why OPSEC, when we have GROW or even IDR, neither of whom are copied on this e-mail?

What do the chairs of those WGs say?

Tom Petch
</tp>

On Monday 27th the chairs of OPSEC WG will ask the WG during a period of
7 days for feedback on these drafts to support or deny acceptance as WG documents.

Kind Regards,
G/, KK & Warren

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>