Re: draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic-11 again

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <200302272037.h1RKbBsv027453@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, Micha
el Richardson writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
>>>>>> "Steven" == Steven M Bellovin <smb@research.att.com> writes:
>    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>    >> 
>    >> 
>    >> I'd like the IESG to consider publishing
>    >> draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic-11 as Informational.
>    >> 
>    >> This document was partially re-written last summer by a tech writer,
>    >> so I hope that no more word smithing is necessary.
>    >> 
>    >> This documents a protocol which is in current, and growing use.
>    >> 
>    >> This document specifies use of the IPsec subtype of the KEY resource
>    >> record, whose use was obsoleted by RFC3445, the IESG may prefer to
>    >> recommend Historical at this time if this is a problem.
>
>    Steven> Given the creation of the IPSECKEY wg, wouldn't it be better to
>    Steven> wait and publish a revised version of this as Proposed?
>
>  I would prefer not to go this way.
>
>  a) That is kind of prejudging the conclusion to the WG, isn't it?
>
>  b) Perhaps IPSECKEY WG will want to review the prior art.
>
>  c) this protocol is out there... The logs of my test system rotate
>     very quickly as people try it out. Many people I've never heard of.
>     It should have been documented properly awhile ago.
>
>  d) It certainly (and I thought intentionally) does not fit into the 
>     charter of IPSECKEY, so I'm not sure how it would get to PS.
>
>  I definitely want to revise things after IPSECKEY is done. There are
>clearly many options in the process for proceeding at that point.

I'm not at all suggesting that the draft become a WG document; I was 
just wondering if it should instead reflect the new IPSECKEY record 
instead of the old KEY record.  Your note itself suggested Historical 
status, which is rather unusual as a starting state.

In any event, thanks for the feedback.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)