RE: Configuration portion of OPEN ISSUES...

[Tylor Allison <allison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Van Aken Dirk wrote:

> Hi Theodore, see my comment below.
>
> > --SNIP--
> > >
> > > For example, in the case of the open issue on how to handle
> > > configuration, the choices to the working group are:
> > >
> > > 	* Keep configuration payload
> > > 	* Remove configuration payload and pursue RFC
> > > 3456-style configuration
> > > 	* Keep configuration payload and allow optional
> > > 		RFC 3456-style configuration
> >
> > If I'm reading your options correctly, we (I THINK) had some
> > consensus (or
> > at least strong interest) on the list for the last option,
> > and some folks
> > are working on text to clarify it. Did you mean to capture
> > with the last
> > bullet the case where we use a ModeCFG-like format to run a
> > DHCP (or other)
> > discovery/request in IKE? This would be very different than
> > "3456-style"
> > configuration, as 3456 occurs in Phase2.
> >
> > Just trying to clarify what you meant... thanks,
> >
> > Gregory.
> >
>
> To clarify this open issue can we modify the list as follows (in order to
> not have any confusion on what we are discussing about):
>
> 1) Keep configuration payload
> 2) Remove configuration payload and pursue RFC 3456-style configuration
> 3) Keep configuration payload and allow optional RFC 3456-style
> configuration
> 4) Remove configuration payload and pursue an DHCP-over-IKE style
> configuration
>
> I'm in favour of 2) and can live with 3).
>
> Dirk

I agree with this distinction in the options...

I'd prefer to see option 1 or 4... don't really care which one.  I strongly
disagree with option 3... leaving this optional really means implementing
both if you want to be interoperable with all vendors.

=====================================================================
= Tylor Allison         Secure Computing Corporation        =========
=====================================================================