Re: Fwd: LAST CALL: IKE Crypto documents I-D's

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:18:12PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am confused here.  Based on the front matter in both documents, the 
> authors of each document appear to have Standards Track in mind.  Standards 
> Track seems reasonable to me in both cases.

Well, maybe we need to have a discussion the working group and the
AD's about this question.  The reason why Barbara and I thought
Informational track would be more appropriate for
draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites is because it doesn't actually impose any
MUST's on the protocol, as defined as bits-on-the-wire.  

So with no impliciations on bits-on-the-wire, what "at least two
interoperable implementations" means is an interesting question
indeed.

On the other hand, there the IETF advanced the GSSAPI specifications
as Proposed Standard even though there little to no protocol
implication.  That might argue that the ui-suites I-D should be a
Proposed Standard, and we'll simply leave the headache of what
"interoperable implementations" mean to the IESG in that case.

All of this being said, neither Barbara nor I have any strong feelings
on this matter, so we are certainly open to any strong sense from the
wg, or direction from the AD's.

						- Ted