Re: [IPSECKEY] Re: ipseckey out of iesg

[Sam Weiler <weiler@watson.org>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>     IESG> Thomas Narten:
> 
>     IESG> Intro (actually no part of the document) actually explains what this
>     IESG> RR is useful for. Consider a reader not familar with this effort who
>     IESG> would like to understand why this RR is needed, who uses it, and in
>     IESG> what situations its useful.  For instance, it would be useful to
>     IESG> include an example of how the RR is expected to be used. I.e., it's
>     IESG> not until halfway down the document that one figures out the RR could
>     IESG> identify a gateway one connects to to create an IPsec tunnel to a
>     IESG> particular site. But the RR is keyed by an address. Why does one need
>     IESG> to map from the address to a gateay? I suspect 1 or 2 paragraphs
>     IESG> would to the trick.
>     IESG> 
>     IESG> Specific comments:
>     IESG> 
>     IESG> Abstract could be a lot better. Reading it, one doesn't really know
>     IESG> what this document is about or how the RR is used.
> 
>   Hmm. The purpose of this WG is to replace the functionality lost in the
> RFC3445. 2535 doesn't say what the record is for either. So I feel that this
> is really putting a higher standard on this record than there was in 2535.

2535 was also nearly unreadable.  Perhaps we should hold ourselves to
a higher standard. 

I don't think Thomas was asking us to codify anything -- he was asking
for explanation.  Let's give it to him.

-- Sam

-
This is the IPSECKEY@sandelman.ca list.
Email to ipseckey-request@sandelman.ca to be removed.