[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Position statement on IKE development
<snipped>
> Speaking from an operator's viewpoint, I have to agree with Mike and
> other posters in support of jumping over 'son-of-IKE' and, instead,
> launching a new initiative for a 'next-generation' IKE that is based
> on a clearly defined set of *requirements* from the operator and
> implementor community. In fact, starting with *requirements draft*
> BEFORE 'son-of-IKE' would be immensely helpful in gathering consensus
> on whether it is even worth it to do 'son-of-IKE' or just jump over it
> and start from scratch.
I tried to get additional requirements added to the IPSRA requirements
document, but I was told things like keepalives were out of scope due to the
"no changes to IKE" requirements. These are some of the replies I got from
Paul Hoffman when I suggested additions to the requirements draft.
Mike Horn: 1) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support NAT traversal.
Paul Hoffman: We don't yet have a standard for that.
Mike Horn: 2) The IRAC SHOULD support redundant gateways.
Paul Hoffman: This is an application issue, not a protocol issue.
Mike Horn: 3) The IRAS and IRAC SHOULD support a keepalive or make dead
mechanism.
Paul Hoffman: We don't yet have a standard for that.
I thought the point of a requirements draft was to clearly define the things
that need solutions, not how to use existing solutions.
Mike Horn
Follow-Ups: