Re: Moving forward on RFC 2401-bis

["Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>]

Karen, great. One nit: none of the items are "resolved" as such. They need to
be discussed on the list first. (That's because, unlike the issues in the IKE
draft, these are architectural changes that have not been previously 
discussed.)
Cheers,
-Angelos

In message <p05200f0dbb6c4b053bc0@[128.89.89.115]>, Karen Seo writes:
>Folks,
>
>Just an update... We've reviewed the 9 items on the IPsec tracking 
>list for 2401:
>
>1. We believe the following 5 items have been resolved.  At the 
>beginning of next week, we will send out individual writeups for the 
>following items:
>	47	All selectors can be a list of ranges, per IKEv2 spec
>	48 	Add ToS traffic selector option
>	49	Red-side fragmentation option
>	50	Tunnel vs transport mode
>	57	ECN support
>
>2. Four of the items are inter-related and should be addressed 
>together as part of the new IPsec processing model, which is still 
>being discussed.  Later next week, we will send out a revised version 
>of the write up on the processing model with updates reflecting 
>feedback/conclusions to date.  This will cover the following items:
>	40 	Interface SPD selector vs per-interface SPD
>	44 	Forwarding table lookup to select virtual interface ID
>	45 	Use of cache with de-correlated SPD
>	46	No need for iterated processing
>
>3. In addition to the items in the tracking system, there are a 
>number of other issues that have come up during the past months. 
>Over the next couple of weeks, we will be sending out descriptions of 
>these issues for group review/discussion.
>
>Have a good weekend!
>Karen
>