Moving forward on RFC 2401-bis

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

Hi Steve, Karen.

We'd like to thank you for your excellent work in preparing the list of
issues and proposed changes/updates to RFC 2401.  Hopefully the members
of the IPSEC working group have had time to read over these lists we've
had a week or two of unstructured discussion over the changes to the
IPSEC processing model.

However, it is now time that we go through each of the changes in a
slightly more structured format.  To that end, Angelos has taken your
initial list of proposed changes and put them into the Roundup issues
tracker:

		https://roundup.machshav.com/ipsec

We would appreciate it if you could look over the list of changes let us
know if they are complete.  Then, if you could prepare a paragraph or
two for each proposed change, so the working group can consider each
change one at a time.  We would like to quickly, but explicitly have the
working group approve each change to RFC 2401, one at a time.

As a suggestion, we believe that issues #48 and #47 which is related to
the addition/changes of traffic selectors in IKEv2, be worked on first,
since they affect the IKEv2 document which is being finalized.  (As a
reminder, we wll not add traffic selectors for ToS in IKEv2 --- see
issue #16 --- unless we come to consensus that they should be added in
the architecture document.  If IKEv2 is published before we come to
consensus on issue #48, and issue #48 is adopted, this can always be
fixed by a supplemental RFC which documents the new TOS traffic
selector.  But this is a reason why we suggest that issue #48 be tackled
first.)

If you could post an short e-mail summarizing the costs and benefits of
adopting the TOS Traffic Selectors to the ipsec mailing list at your
earliest convenient to start discussion on that change, we would greatly
appreciate it.  Hopefully we will be able to come to consensus on all of
the changes to RFC 2401 with dispatch.

					- Ted and Barbara