RE: draft-yamada-active-trace-00.txt

I was just about to get some discussion going.  Tatsuya's paper was one open
item.  The other was Jon David's point about bloom filters.  Is there an
action item there?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leech, Marcus [CAR:8M70:EXCH] 
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:13 PM
> To: YAMADA Tatsuya
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: draft-yamada-active-trace-00.txt
> 
> 
> YAMADA Tatsuya wrote:
> > 
> > I have put a new I-D 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yamada-active-trace-00.txt
> > , which is the I-D I had written in
> > Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> > 
> > But some typos in this draft, please replace them.
> > * in a figure of section 3.4.1
> > Passive Traceback ID (3 octets) -> 4 octets
> > Trace Rate (4 octets)           -> 5 octets
> > * in a figure of section 3.4.2
> > Passive Traceback ID (3 octets) -> 4 octets
> > 
> > Let's get the discussion going.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> My general feeling is that active-traceback schemes are 
> out-of-scope for our
>   original charter.  I'm willing to be convinced that we 
> should re-charter, but
>   only AFTER the existing scheme has been put to bet.
> 
> With that in mind, the existing draft-ietf-itrace-02 needs to 
> have some
>   wishy-washiness in assignment of code points cleaned up.  
> Tom, or someone
>   else, could we clarify the IANA situation for the HASH ALGORITHM and
>   SIGNATURE ALGORITHM codepoint assignments?
> 
> Also, it would be good to have some packet examples to aid 
> implementors.
> 
> I've made a tentative promise to get our document submitted 
> to the IESG
>   by April, and have this work more-or-less put to bed fairly soon.
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marcus Leech                             Mail:   Dept 8M70, 
> MS 012, FITZ
> Advisor                                  Phone: (ESN) 
> 393-9145  +1 613 763 9145
> Security Architecture and Planning       Fax:   (ESN) 
> 393-9435  +1 613 763 9435
> Nortel Networks                          [email protected]
> -----------------Expressed opinions are my own, not my 
> employer's------
>