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

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

Ted:

> > 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.

It does impact interoperability.  If the same string is used by two 
different vendors to mean different collections of algorithms, then the 
protocol negations will probably fail in a reasonable way to people that 
look at the actual packets.  However, two administrators will say that the 
boxes are configured in the same way, but they fail to interoperate.

>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.

I understand your points.  I will discuss with the rest of the IESG and 
report back.  We happen to have a telechat scheduled for tomorrow,

Russ