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

[Barbara Fraser <byfraser@cisco.com>]

Hi,

Thanks for taking this process question to the IESG. Ted and I would like
to urge the working group to focus on the technical content of these
drafts. That's where the energy needs to be spent. 

thanks,
Barb

We'll deal with the appropriate handling of these documents as a 

At 02:18 PM 6/11/2003, Russ Housley wrote:
> 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