[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
It is the critical question. It's something the working group has to
decide upon too. My preference is to bump the major version number in the
header and change the bits on the wire where needed. I don't think a
pure clarification step is really necessary as the documents aren't
so bad as to prevent implementation and the steps you suggest could
drag on for years. But, as I said, it's up to the working group whether
we're changing bits on the wire and if so how and to what extent.
I'd like to see a protocol whose sole point in existing is to establish
SAs for IPsec and I hope that would be the determinant in what stays, goes,
or is clarified. But, again, it's up to the working group.
Dan.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:50:44 EST you wrote
>
> 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 n
>o[
> ] Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems Oh where, oh where has|problem wit
>h[
> ] mcr@solidum.com www.solidum.com the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 110
>0[
> ] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");
> [
>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: