Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, George Jones wrote:
> Pekka, what is the status/progress/timeframe for
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03
>
> being published ?
>
> I'm putting (hopefully) the last touches on draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps.
> It cites your draft.

I'm open to input about that; I haven't actively pursued publishing it 
as an RFC.  I'll re-cap the draft at RTGWG meeting on Friday morning, 
though I don't think RTGWG is the right place to adopt it as its 
mostly about OPS rathar than RTG.  The best choice would probably be 
an AD-sponsored individual submission if it were to be published, 
given that I suspect OPSEC WG shouldn't be taking on new documents at 
this phase of its lifecycle.

So, I'm open to thoughts about this.  I suspect ADs might also be 
interested in seeing public comments wrt the usefulness (or lack 
thereof) of this work, so that they could more easily decide whether 
there is a consistituency publishing the document would be serving.

This document's fate is probably also loosely tied to 
draft-ietf-opsec-infrastructure-security as the goals seem to be at 
least somewhat overlapping.  Both are also similar in the sense that 
they don't present operational security requirements in the manner 
that the rest of the OPSEC documents are doing.  (FWIW, I personally 
don't agree with the current direction 
draft-ietf-opsec-infrastructure-security seems to be taking so that 
part of OPSEC work may or may not also take a while yet.)

That said, I wouldn't put it in as a normative reference due to these 
uncertainties; informative doesn't require RFC publication so that 
should probably be OK (process-wise at least) in any case.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings