Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Charter and Meeting Agenda

From: "Michael H. Behringer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:13:41 +0100

Russ, all, 

At 15:37 06/01/2007, Russ White wrote:
[...]
>o P-2-P security requirements for BGP: This was to provide some cover
>and thinking on the various TCP auth mechanisms to replace MD5 that are
>currently being considered. We need, I believe, a volunteer to
>author/edit this, and get it moving.
[...]

I had a go at that topic, please see below. This still needs quite some content and editing; for now, I would like to ask for feedback on the abstract / intro (to make sure the problem is described correctly), and the outline of the draft. Is this the way we want to go down here? Please let me know your opinion. 

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-00.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-00.txt

Cheers, 
Michael 

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:48:56 -0500 (EST)

Russ White wrote:
[...]
>author/edit this, and get it moving.

It should be noted that the tcpm working group has adopted the action
of working on a replacement to TCP MD5.  A design team, I'm told, is
being assembled and should be announced RSN, like maybe this week.
The intent is to meld the two most promising existing suggestions.

So if we are setting requirements, and they are starting work on the
protocol, we'd better get going pretty fast.  Some coordination with
the tcpm chairs seems like it might be in order.

--Sandy