Re: Charlie has submitted a new version of draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2

[Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>]

I have no problem with two documents, but it needs to be done very 
soon.  It is best for the IESG to ballot the two documents together.

Russ

At 12:38 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

>[ This note should have been sent last week, but for some reason it
>   apparently never made it out of my sent mail queue.  My
>   apologies... -- Ted ]
>
>Hi Russ,
>
>Charlie has submitted a new version of the ikev2-bis document:
>
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-12.txt
>
>This draft contains fixes to various nits and errors that were raised
>after the wg last call (including the ones which you had found during
>your initial review of the ikev2-11 I-D after we had forwarded it to
>you).  We believe that none of the changes are controversial, and so
>the document should be ready for IETF-wide last call.
>
>One change that in the document dependency structure which is present
>in the -12 document is that the IANA considerations section has been
>moved to a separate document which Michael Richardson has been
>developing.
>
>Do you have an opinion about whether the IANA considerations should be
>kept in a separate document, which would make it easier for the IANA
>to review (and which truly isn't really necessary for implementors to
>see), or whether it should be combined into one document (which is
>already 102 pages and over 250k long)?  It seemed to us that it might
>make more sense for the IANA considerations to be in a separate
>informational RFC, but there are certainly arguments to do things
>either way.  Do you believe the IESG and the IANA would have a strong
>preference to do things one way or the other?
>
>Many thanks!!
>
>                                                 - Ted