At 12:31 PM 4/16/02 -0400, Naidu, Venkata wrote:
>-> > - Document security requirements for the next generation routing
>-> > system
>
> IRTF RRG Group A and B are working on this.
> Isn't this a duplicate work *or*
> Is that RPSEC going to work with IRTF RRG?!?
>
>Venkata.
First, the RRG does not have a monopoly on routing work :-)
Second, if the RPSEC group takes the work we've done and
carrys it forward, perhaps adding more detailed information,
perhaps doing some of the engineering to apply enhanced
security features to current protocols, perhaps identifying
new threats that need to be addressed, etc, etc, well,
isn't that the way things should work? In the requirements
development that we do, we can always spin our documents to
refer to the work in RPSEC (and vice versa).
I do not see this as an issue to worry about.
Frank Kastenholz
co-chair, IRTF RRG
==================================================
My preferrred signature is:
This information is for the sole use of
whoever receives it and may contain confusing,
enlightening, enraging, entertaining,
irritating, or just plain stupid information,
including without limitation, double-secret-
probation information belonging to [CENSORED
BY THE NSA/FBI/MOUSE]. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure, or distribution outside of an
establishment serving alchohol is prohibited on
days that do not end in Y.
But our ******'d lawyers would rather have:
=======================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information, including without
limitation, Confidential and/or Proprietary Information belonging to
Unisphere Networks, Inc. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT