Re: revised IPsec processing model: Q: VID and forwarding function

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

>>>I would not consider it 'vetted', but rather proposed at best. 
>>>Even at that time Lars Eggert and I expressed significant concerns 
>>>about this proposal.
>>>
>>>A brief summary of some of those concerns, to the extent that we 
>>>could address them absent a detailed proposal, was discussed in 
>>>section 4.1.3 as "Alternative 3" of the final update of our ID on 
>>>the issue of support for dynamic routing in IPsec 
>>>(draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-05.txt).
>>
>>My view is that the majority of the participants in the discussions 
>>found it an acceptable model, but you and Lars did not.  rough 
>>consensus?
>
>I recall only 1-2 other participants in those meetings; it was a 
>quick chat over the break, as I recall as well. I wouldn't consider 
>that brief discussion sufficient for anyone to establish consensus, 
>certainly not based on the absence of detail at that time.
>
>Joe

I was referring to the e-mail messages that were exchanged over a 
several month period, during which I proposed the model, not to any 
in-person discussions. Again, I apologize for the ambiguity of the 
reference to "discussions."

Steve