Subject: Fwd: LAST CALL: IKE Crypto documents I-D's

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:18:12 -0400

I am confused here.  Based on the front matter in both documents, the 
authors of each document appear to have Standards Track in mind.  Standards 
Track seems reasonable to me in both cases.

Russ

>This is a working group last call for comments on the following drafts.
>
>For progression to Proposed Standard:
>
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-algorithms-02.txt
>
>For progression to Informational:
>
>         draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites-00.txt
>
>This last call with expire on June 23rd.

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:39:05 -0400

> Track seems reasonable to me in both cases.

Well, maybe we need to have a discussion the working group and the
AD's about this question.  The reason why Barbara and I thought
Informational track would be more appropriate for
draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites is because it doesn't actually impose any
MUST's on the protocol, as defined as bits-on-the-wire.  

So with no impliciations on bits-on-the-wire, what "at least two
interoperable implementations" means is an interesting question
indeed.

On the other hand, there the IETF advanced the GSSAPI specifications
as Proposed Standard even though there little to no protocol
implication.  That might argue that the ui-suites I-D should be a
Proposed Standard, and we'll simply leave the headache of what
"interoperable implementations" mean to the IESG in that case.

All of this being said, neither Barbara nor I have any strong feelings
on this matter, so we are certainly open to any strong sense from the
wg, or direction from the AD's.

						- Ted

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:18:33 -0400

>MUST's on the protocol, as defined as bits-on-the-wire.

It does impact interoperability.  If the same string is used by two 
different vendors to mean different collections of algorithms, then the 
protocol negations will probably fail in a reasonable way to people that 
look at the actual packets.  However, two administrators will say that the 
boxes are configured in the same way, but they fail to interoperate.

>wg, or direction from the AD's.

I understand your points.  I will discuss with the rest of the IESG and 
report back.  We happen to have a telechat scheduled for tomorrow,

Russ

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:17:00 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > Standards Track seems reasonable to me in both cases.

=> why not a BCP?

Thanks

[email-masked]

---

From: Barbara Fraser <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:16:01 -0700

Hi,

Thanks for taking this process question to the IESG. Ted and I would like 
to urge the working group to focus on the technical content of these 
drafts. That's where the energy needs to be spent.

thanks,
Barb

We'll deal with the appropriate handling of these documents as a

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:57:50 -0400

I have some advice from the IESG on draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites.  It comes 
in the form of two suggestions.

First, change the structure of draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites so that it 
establishes an IANA registry for the ASCII strings that identify the suites.

Second, publish draft-ietf-ipsec-ui-suites as a BCP.

Russ

At 03:16 PM 6/11/2003 -0700, Barbara Fraser wrote:
>>look at the actual packets.  However, two administrators will say that 
>>the boxes are configured in the same way, but they fail to interoperate.
>>