Hi,my reading of the list discussion is that we do have consensus for TSVWG to take this on this work item with draft-larsen-tsvwg-port- randomization as the basis, i.e., option (1) below.
Authors: Please submit the next revision as draft-ietf-tsvwg-port- randomization-00 with a target of Proposed Standard. You should also review the comments that have been made on the list and incorporate them into the revision. For example, several people suggested that the document should more prominently recommend one randomization scheme (or a small number of alternatives). The analysis of the pros and cons of currently implemented schemes that is the bulk of the current document should maybe become an informative appendix.
DCCP & TCPM working groups: The continued discussion around this draft will occur on the TSVWG list only, to minimize cross-posting. There will be a joint WG last call eventually, but please participate in the ongoing discussion on TSVWG until then.
On 2007-9-12, at 11:38, ext Lars Eggert wrote:
Please comment on the tsvwg@xxxxxxxx list (reply-to set accordingly), even if you have already commented be on this draft in the past.To make it easy for your chairs, please start your email by choosing ONE of the options below, followed by any detailed comments you'd like to make:(1) TSVWG should take on this work item, with this document as the basis (2) TSVWG should take on this work item, but NOT with this document as the basis(3) TSVWG should NOT take on this work item (4) don't care
Lars
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
