[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Truce (was Re: Comments on CRACK)

Sarah has suggested that we hold two IETF meetings. The first to discuss
the charter and our goals, and the second to present the different

We are currently slightly modifing the charter that was presented here
to address some of the concerns that the ADs have, but none of the goals
have changed.  When they are happy, I'll post it back on the list and
then we can talk about it in preparation for the IETF.

BTW: We should keep our discussions only to this mailing list and not
the main IPSec mailing list.  I've had a few complaints about the

"Scott G. Kelly" wrote:
> "Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
> > We're arguing over protocols when we haven't agreed what the basic
> > requirements are; as a result, we have multiple different incompatible
> > protocols (including more than one version of XAUTH), all trying to
> > solve the same problem, and people talking past one another about what's
> > important and what's not.
> >
> > In my opinion, what we need to do is call a halt, take a deep breath,
> > and return to basics --- to wit, a formal requirements document.  This
> > may take time, but it's likely to be the one that's most likely to yield
> > forward progress.  Xauth and its sister contenders have been on the
> > table for a long time, and we haven't been able to come to consensus so
> > far; does anyone really think that we will be able to obtain consensus
> > by continuing this path?
> Of course, Ted is right. The dogmatic tone of our discussion to date is
> ample evidence of that. I am going to resist the urge to reply to the
> pile of email on this topic this morning pending further requirements
> discussion. I suggest that Vipul Gupta's remote access draft is probably
> a very good starting point for a requirements draft. Does anyone else
> have an opinion on this (need I ask)?
> Scott

Roy Pereira
Product Line Manager, VPN
Security Internet Services Unit
Cisco Systems