[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re:Conclusion: RE: Interest to have as an WG item: draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure -tunnels-03.txt
Jordi,
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 10:23, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Jonne, all,
>
> This is exactly what I think is unfair and I tried to describe several
> times.
I'm sorry that you find it unfair. However, I think it is fair to check
if there is support and it was not clear that there was.
>
> In other occasions, other documents with similar level of inputs (or even
> lower !) have been accepted as WG items.
For example?
>
> Where is the limit between something being accepted and not ? If we don't
> have a clear rule, then we have nothing ;-)
I think it is difficult to quantify exactly how many people you need to
have something to be accepted. However, when you actually have only one
person supporting the document (you) and the other comment (from Alain)
was a bit hesitant - it does not seem that there is good support in the
WG.
Maybe the reason for that is that people have to read it. I hope people
would read it and discuss it in the mailing list. Then when there is
support we can have it in the WG as an item.
>
> So are we going then to apply the same rule to those documents that have
> already being accepted ? Or in the other way around, are we going to accept
> this document now ?
I don't think we have added anything to the WG items by having just one
person supporting it. I believe that the document has to have some
support in the WG (multiple people speaking up and already discussion in
the mailing list). It seems that there is now some discussion started on
the mailing list, and maybe the support for the document is going to be
there soon. However, in this case there was not much support.
Cheers,
Jonne.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> > De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
> > Responder a: "owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Fecha: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0200
> > Para: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Asunto: Conclusion: RE: Interest to have as an WG item:
> > draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure -tunnels-03.txt
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > (chair hat on)
> > there was not an overly enthusiastic response during the two week
> > period. Though, the interest seems to have risen toward the end of the
> > period, still very few people responded.
> >
> > I would conclude that there was not enough consensus to take the
> > document as WG item at this point.
> >
> > I hope, however, the authors of the document could continue the work.
> > And I would like to people read the document and comment.
> >
> > Let's check the situation later if more interest raises.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jonne.
> >
> > On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 16:32, ext Tschofenig Hannes wrote:
> >> hi alain,
> >>
> >> thanks for your comment.
> >>
> >> to show you the difference between a document that describes how to use
> >> ikev1/ikev2 (and ipsec) to provide security of something you might also want
> >> to look at the mip6 working group where documents exist that describe how
> >> ikev1/ipsec is used to secure the mipv6 signaling between the mn and the ha
> >> (and the same for ikev2):
> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3776.txt
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-00.txt
> >>
> >> the v6ops-secure-tunnels document is of this type. we are, however, not
> >> extendig ikev2 (luckily).
> >>
> >> a tutorial (as a comparison) looks like:
> >> http://ftp.iasi.rdsnet.ro/mirrors/nis.nsf.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips
> >> ec-ikev2-tutorial-01.txt
> >>
> >> ciao
> >> hannes
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM]
> >>> Sent: Freitag, 14. JÃnner 2005 14:06
> >>> To: Pekka Savola
> >>> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Interest to have as an WG item:
> >>> draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-03.txt
> >>>
> >>> Well, I'm not a security expert, far from that, so I'm not
> >>> sure I can comment on the quality of the security assertions.
> >>> However, at fist glance, it seems that this is a tutorial on ikev1 &
> >>> ikev2
> >>> in the context of IPv6...
> >>> I other words, it is unclear to me why we need this document
> >>> in v6Ops and why it is not homed in a security related wg IF
> >>> there is a need for such a document.
> >>>
> >>> On another note, some of the techniques described here may be
> >>> useful in the context of v6tc...
> >>>
> >>> - Alain.
> >>>
> >>>
> > --
> > Jonne Soininen
> > Nokia
> >
> > Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
> > E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> **********************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> Presentations and videos on line at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia
Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com