On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Danny McPherson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Matthew Lepinski wrote: >> >> I would like to confirm on the list that the discussions at the last interim >> reflect the consensus of the working group. >> In this message, I list for each open issue, my understanding of the sense >> of the room in Amsterdam. If you believe that for any of these issues that I >> may be misunderstanding the consensus of the working group, please start a >> discussion on the list as soon as possible. I am currently working on the >> -06 version of the protocol draft, therefore, if you have an objection to >> anything in this message, please raise it promptly. > > While I have no problem with this reflecting what occurred at the interim > meeting, I again don't think we can reach any sort of closure on any of the > bgpsec-proto work until the Threats and subsequent Requirements documents are > closed. >
i had thought there was agreement at the last interim that threats/requirements needed to get baked before the protocol doc move to the next step in the process. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
