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@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf