[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Harkins <dharkins@cips.nokia.COM> writes:
Dan> *) what does it mean to combine these three RFCs?
Dan> - no "layer violations" when defining things (like the commit
Dan> bit: it's from a header defined in RFC2408 used in an exchange
Dan> defined in RFC2409 because of an aspect of the service defined
Dan> in RFC2407) so we gain in clarity.
Dan> - we lose the generic transport and generic key exchange and
Dan> gain a key exchange and security association establishment
Dan> protocol for IPsec.
To what extent is this is a redefinition of the protocol --- i.e. a text
change, and to what extent is this a change in the definition of the bits on
the wire?
Or is this the critical question?
Will there be a requirements stage?
My suggestion is:
1) rewrite/clarify the three RFCs into 1.
particularly, clarify extension mechanisms.
Publish. (no protocol changes)
2) establish chop list. Stuff we wish to deprecate, move to another
document, etc.
Publish. (only subtract/MAY-ify things)
3) establish requirements list, and identify people who want to
work on these items, and form very short lived WGs to do these
extensions.
] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
] Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems Oh where, oh where has|problem with[
] mcr@solidum.com www.solidum.com the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
Follow-Ups:
References: