|
Hi Sam,
the IPsec failover work originated with the IPsec VPN community. There is massive industry support behind the current problem statement, as witness the list of contributors on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vidya-ipsec-failover-ps-02.txt.
With all due respect to
the MIP6 activities, the need for this solution in the IPsec space
exists today, whereas there are at best few large scale deployments of
MIP6. So it makes little sense to block this activity, or even delay it
by 4 months, because of the lack of interest in the MIP6 community. I
do realize MIP6 is a big chunk of the problem/applicability statement,
and we certainly need to solicit their support. But just as
Lakshminath noted that SDOs are awaiting this solution, there are
actual deployment architectures that can benefit from it today.
Best regards,
Regretfully, I have chosen to decline to sponsor the ifare bof for Chicago. I think there is a lot of interest. However I don't think we have come far enough in working with people who disagree with the ifare proposal or who don't see the value for a productive second BOF. Remember that if this second BOF doesn't get us the face to face time we need to get a charter, our options are very limited. Proposals are given at most two BOFs. According to the MIP6 chairs this effort has received little traction in the MIP6 working group. In order to use the current problem and applicability statement you would need to show significant interest from the MIP6 working group. Also, there has been rather limited discussion on the BOF list. I'd be happy to meet with proponents of this work in Chicago and discuss how we can try and build the necessary support for a second BOF. Sam Hartman Security Area Director |