Subject: [Netconf] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-07

From: Badra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:30:26 +0100

Dear all,

Please find an updated version as required by our AD Dan Romascanu, based on
the WG discussion and consensus call. We are going to bring it to the next
step.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-07.txt

Best regards

Badra

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:56:03 +0100

Dear NETCONF WG,
 
we had a chat with our AD Dan Romascanu on the message 
integrity issue and how we should proceed with the TLS draft.
Current version is draft-ietf-netconf-tls-07.txt.
 
Our conclusion from the feedback on the mailing list and our chat
with the AD is that it would be the best if we bring the NETCONF 
over TLS document to RFC and get it published.
 
We, the WG chairs, still think that the EOM or message integrity 
issue is not specific to Netconf over TLS and a satisfying solution 
(addressing also NETCONF base and SSH transport protocols) 
can only be found if it's developed in conjunction with access 
control. Therefor we don't see a TLS-only solution, which would 
obviously differs from the current SSH transport, as appropriate. 
 
We would like to encourage a discussion on the message integrity 
issue in San Francisco meeting and ask whether the WG members 
are interested to work on a generic and complete solution. The 
development of this issue can then be started after re-chartering.
 
For now, we will bring the updated version of the TLS draft to the
next step, which is IESG review. If possible Dan will bring it to the 
next IESG chat.
 
Thank you all again for supporting the TLS RFC development. 
  
Bert & Mehmet 

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of ext Badra
	Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:30 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [Netconf] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-netconf-tls-07

	Dear all,

	Please find an updated version as required by our AD Dan
Romascanu, based on the WG discussion and consensus call. We are going
to bring it to the next step.

	Best regards
	
	Badra