On 1/19/11 2:10 PM, Keith Welter wrote:
This may be a naive answer, but I'm not opposed to the idea of Individual Submission. I do have some comments/questions: 1. My draft depends on RFC 6023 and cites it as a normative reference. Since I'd like to get my draft on the standards track, does that mean that RFC 6023 needs to get on the standards track too?
Maybe, but probably not. If you call this out during IETF LC, the IESG can decide whether or not it is allowed. My reading of your draft ("do 6023 but with these changes") does require 6023 to be normative because the reader has to understand 6023, but the fact that 6023 is experimental should not affect your draft because you are giving your own protocol. Others may disagree, though.
2. There is one point I'd still like technical input on, namely the security considerations of signing the previous AUTH payload sent by the host in the modified IKE_AUTH exchange (section 5 of the draft). Yoav suggested this approach, it sounded fine to me, I ran it by a couple of my colleagues (Scott Moonen and David Wierbowski) who thought it sound fine too so I used it in the new draft. I'd feel better if another subject matter expert said, "yes, that is fine."
That's what the informal discussion on this list *and* what IETF Last Call are for.
3. In practice, is an Individual Submission less likely to be widely adopted than a document that is sponsored by a working group?
No. Notice that RFCs don't say how they got there.
I realize that is probably a moot point, given the lack of energy in the WG that Paul noted, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Adoption is much more based on customer demand and the problem that is solved than the origin of the document.
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
