[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

I have some advice from the IESG on draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites.  It comes 
in the form of two suggestions.

First, change the structure of draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites so that it 
establishes an IANA registry for the ASCII strings that identify the suites.

Second, publish draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites as a BCP.


At 03:16 PM 6/11/2003 -0700, Barbara Fraser wrote:
>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.
>We'll deal with the appropriate handling of these documents as a
>At 02:18 PM 6/11/2003, 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.
>>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
>>>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,