[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipsec
Subject:    [Ipsec] Re: Results of straw poll regarding: IKEv2 interoperability
From:       Russ Housley <housley () vigilsec ! com>
Date:       2005-03-15 15:13:27
Message-ID: 6.2.0.14.2.20050315100106.0624c8e0 () mail ! binhost ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Ted:

The fact that so few people responded to the straw poll causes alarm.  The 
issue was raised at a bake-off, and some of the implementations represented 
at the bake-off are not represented in the straw poll responses.

I have a question: Do you believe that this response represents WG 
consensus?  If so, then please prepare an RFC Editor note that describes 
the change that needs to be made, send it to me, and I will work with the 
IESG to get it approved.  If not, then we should not make any changes.

The WG chairs must judge consensus.  In this case, it is a subjective 
decision, and you may want to consult with WG participants that did not 
respond to the straw poll to figure it out.  At least one person that was 
at the bake-off has told me that they had come up with a way to achieve 
interoperability without making changes.  I think Paul Hoffman made a 
posting to the mail list about that approach half way through the straw 
poll.  This is just one more dimension of your consensus decision.

Russ


At 07:50 PM 3/14/2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

>Two weeks ago, there was a discussion about an interoperability problem
>in IKEv2 that was turned up during interoperability testing.  A week
>ago, I called for a straw poll; based on the fact that the number of
>responses was a little sparse, and last week was the Minneapolis IETF, I
>let the straw poll go on all last week.
>
>The straw poll indicated a majority (although certainly not unanimity)
>preference for proposal C:
>
>         PROPOSAL C:
>         -----------
>
>         Change the places that says Transform Type 5 is optional to say
>         it is mandatory.
>
>This choice unfortunately would require making changes to the IKEv2 RFC
>before it is published, and since it has already been through the IESG
>approval process and almost through the entire RFC editor process,
>presumably we would need to make a new I-D and then take it through most
>of this process all over again --- although hopefully it would take much
>less time the second time around.
>
>Russ, would you comment if there is anything special we need to do at
>this point?   Many thanks,
>
>                                                 - Ted
>
>
>Proposal A:
>         Kevin Li <kli@cisco.com>
>         Timothy Liu <timliu@juniper.net>
>
>Proposal C:
>         Srinivasa Rao Addepalli <srao@intoto.com>
>         Geoffrey Huang <ghuang@cisco.com>
>         Michael Roe <mroe@microsoft.com>
>         Grubmair Peter <peter.grubmair@siemens.com>
>         Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
>         Geoffrey Huang <ghuang@cisco.com>
>
>Proposal D:
>         Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
>         Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
>         Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>


_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]