[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPSEC Agenda



I have a couple of comments on the agenda...

1) I'm very surprised to hear that there are only "experimental" 
  implementations of SP3.  This is simply not true.  The US Government 
  currently uses SP3 implementations, which are purchased commercially, 
  to secure some of its networks.  SP3 is known to be solid and to work 
  well and be scalable to higher bandwidth networks.  It is not experimental  
  at all, but rather is a solid production-quality protocol and has
  a clear, readable, and sufficiently detailed specification. 

2) What is the status of getting the IPSP session onto the MBONE Multicast
  Conference list for Amsterdam ?  A number of us are unable to attend
  and would like to participate via the MBONE.

 3) I don't see any announcement of an IPSP draft being available online
   via the Internet drafts mechanism.  As such, it is inappropriate to
   discuss any particular IPSP draft or select one at this time.  Drafts
   for the various proposals need to be made fully available using the
   Internet Drafts mechanism sufficiently before any IETF meeting or any
   decision so that anyone on the Internet may have time to review and comment
   on those drafts.  

 	As such the 0945 agenda item appears to be inappropriate if it
   talks about any specific IPSP draft proposal rather than discussing
   technical features desired in a proposal-neutral manner.  I would also
   suggest that IP labelling is out of the scope of the IPSP working group.
   The IPSP working group clearly needs to support RFC-1108 which
   is on the Internet Standards track.  Also conference control security
   is a problem for the working group on internet conferencing not for
   IPSP.  The conference control problem is not necessarily best solved
   at the IP layer and the IPSP WG should narrow its focus to IP security.

  4) I would like to encourage more email list discussions and less reliance
   on face to face meetings.   Decisions reached at IETF physical meetings
   are not necessarily binding on the whole working group and all subjects
   should be thoroughly discussed on the email list as well before any 
   conclusions are drawn.  One of the big advantages of the IETF process 
   over some less successful processes is this ability to discuss matters
   via email so that there is more discussion and review of the technical
   content prior to making any decisions.  It will always be the case that
   some folks can't make a physical meeting (Amsterdam is maybe worse than
   normal in this respect) and email is a critical part of the IETF process.

  
Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil