Hi all If we want Paul and Yaron to take this to our AD, we need to show that there are more people who think these work items are a good idea. More people than just me and MCR. So please show your support (or objections!) soon. An "I think this is a good idea", "I think we should use ternary logic", or "+1" is all it takes.
Yoav On Dec 8, 2011, at 10:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > Agree. How about: > > In an environment with many IPsec gateways and remote clients that share an > established trust infrastructure (in a single administrative domain or across > multiple domains), customers want to get on-demand point-to-point IPsec > capability for efficiency. However, this cannot be feasibly accomplished only > with today's IPsec and IKE due to problems with address lookup, reachability, > policy configuration, etc. > > The IPsecME working group will handle this large scale VPN problem by > delivering the following: > > * The working group will create a problem statement document including use > cases, definitions and proper requirements for discovery and updates. This > document would be solution-agnostic. Should reach WG last call around October > 2012. > > * The working group will review and help publish Informational documents > describing current vendor proprietary solutions. These should be ready for > IETF last call by August 2012. > > * The working group will choose a common solution for the discovery and > update problems that will satisfy the requirements in the problem statement > document. The working group may standardize one of the vendor solutions, a > combination, an superset of such a solution, or a new protocol. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
