Subject: [OPSEC] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt> (Cryptographic Authentication Algorithm Implementation Best Practices for Routing Protocols) to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:56:37 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Operational Security
Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG (opsec) to consider the
following document:
- 'Cryptographic Authentication Algorithm Implementation Best Practices
   for Routing Protocols'
  <draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt> as an Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2010-09-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements/

No IPR declarations were found that appear related to this I-D.

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:09:44 -0700

The distinction I think reflects the fact that that as good as we believe that these recommendations are at this time that they are subject to change. It was the opinion of the authors and the chairs that the opinion should be expressed without setting to high a bar for challenging it. This is also reflected in the removal of 2119 language in that this is advice on protocol requirements not requirements as well.

I realize that may sound like I'm trying to thread the needle, but it reflects the fact that the work done as a product of this document will not be done in opsec, or even in the ops area.

Joel's iPad

On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:57, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At 14:56 20-08-10, The IESG wrote:
> If it was the view of the opsec WG that this document represents best practices, it could have chosen an intended status of BCP instead of Informational.  Quoting Section 8:
> 
>  "We expect that new revisions of this document will be issued
>   in the future to reflect current thinking on best practice
>   in this area."
> 
> Does this document reflect best practice in this area?
> 
> As a nit, there are two occurrences of the RFC2119 boilerplate.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:57:57 -0700

>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

If it was the view of the opsec WG that this document represents best 
practices, it could have chosen an intended status of BCP instead of 
Informational.  Quoting Section 8:

Regards,
-sm