Lars Eggert wrote:
My personal take is that the IETF is responsible for the maintenance of
its protocols, and this effort carried ut by the UK CPNI should be
welcome, and the IETF should take the chance and benefit from this work
to publish advice on TCP security/resiliency.
I agree with you, as I've already said on the TCPM list. (See my email
there for details.)
What are your thoughts about working on this I-D in the transport area?
(with hat on).
In the interest of full disclosure, you might want to mention that you
were one of the authors or even the main author of the CPNI document, at
least as far as I know.
Sorry, I thought this was implicit.
I am the only author of the CPNI paper (this is stated in the
"Acknowledgements" of the UK CPNI paper). For instance, that's the
reason for which I am the author of draft-gont-tcp-security.
P.S.: The only reason for which my name is not in the cover page is
simply that that is not the format with which CPNI are published. But I
thought that my authorship of the CPNI document was implicit.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando(_at_)gont(_dot_)com(_dot_)ar || fgont(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf