[anonsec] BYPASS OR PROTECT
julien.IETF at laposte.net
Wed Apr 11 02:01:25 PDT 2007
On Monday 09 April 2007 17:12, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:28:35AM -0400, Stephen
> > At 4:23 PM -0500 4/6/07, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > >My view was that app-driven rules, in the model
> > > we'll describe, are inserted into a normal SPD
> > > and then de-correlation is done again in order
> > > to install the new SPD.
> > OK, then let's say so explicitly in our
> > description of the nominal model.
> > >Implementors may choose to do this differently,
> > > provided that they maintain the same semantics.
> > right, but we need a precise nominal model, like
> > 4301, to provide a testable reference.
> The next revision of the connection latching I-D
> will say so, or perhaps this should be a separate
> I-D (Sam seemed to think so).
> What's the status of the core I-D?
Nico, the WGLC concluded on 2007-04-09, hence I thought
the WG would request publication of the core I-D to
Does the discussion you and Steve have had so far
impact that? In other words, should we delay
submission of the core I-D to IESG?
-- julien / BTNS co-chair
More information about the ANONSEC