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

RE: evaluation draft



This must be why the NAT-traversal IDs weren't submitted under the IPSRA WG
even though they are a direct requirement (sections 2.5, 3.2.5, 3.3.5,
3.4.5, 3.6.5, 4 of IPSRA requirements ID).

Can someone in charge please explain the criteria of why it's ok to change
IKE/IPsec for some new features and not others?

-dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC [mailto:paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 2:30 PM
To: Hugo Krawczyk; ietf-ipsra
Subject: Re: evaluation draft



At 8:56 PM +0300 7/10/01, Hugo Krawczyk wrote:
>Personally, I have no problem with those that want to change the charter
>(I wouldn't be against, except that convergence in this case seems 
>impossible).

Any discussion of the charter is out of scope.

Scott pointed out in an earlier message that we are all intelligent 
adults. Why, then, do many of us keep forgetting what has happened in 
the recent past? We have been told repeatedly that the protocol that 
comes from the WG may not change IKE. Many of us have replied "but we 
think that a change to IKE is a better solution". The response from 
the Area Directors has been unequivocal: no changing IKE, no changing 
the charter.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium