[16207] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [anonsec] Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec (fwd from
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Grigg)
Sun Sep 19 14:34:59 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:15:05 +0100
From: Ian Grigg <iang@systemics.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>,
cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20040918004156.5C71E1AE7E@berkshire.research.att.com>
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> For RFCs, there are two paths. If the topic is general enough (and, of
> course, the advice is good enough), Russ Housley or I would consider
> sponsoring the document as a BCP. If it's narrow or we're not
> interested for some reason (other than quality, of course), it could be
> an individual submission. I encourage both paths.
It sounds like an RFC / BCP would be a good target.
I suspect given the controversy over a lot of these
ideas an intermediate phase would be needed where
the controversy could be aired in depth, before being
summarised into a BCP.
From that pov, a wiki + discussion list leading to a
BCP would seem like a good idea.
Alternatively, let all these things be thrown into
the mixing pot and see what happens?
iang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
