From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:24:02 -0400 (EDT)

(stealth-10-32-244-18.cisco.com [10.32.244.18])
	by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id h7JHIhAj004572;
	Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:18:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
X-Sender: [email-masked]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:18:23 -0700
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
From: Barbara Fraser <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: Moving forward on RFC 2401-bis
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
         [email-masked], [email-masked], Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_138072878==_.ALT"
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

--=====================_138072878==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi Steve and Karen,

This is a friendly ping-o-gram regarding our note to you a week ago. We
would very much appreciate it if you could take a look at the issues in the
issue tracker, check to see that we've captured all your suggested changes,
and provide to the list a brief description for each issue, submitting each
issue as a separate thread to the wg.  At the moment, many of the issues
are single sentences that don't convey enough information for the wg to
fully understand what is being suggested.

We would also like to request a time estimate for when you expect to
provide these issue descriptions/rationales to the list.  This is the last
major work item for the working group and we would like to complete it in
the very near future.

thanks,
Barb and Ted

>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>cc: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Moving forward on RFC 2401-bis
>From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
>Phone: (781) 391-3464
>Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:25:11 -0400
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>Hi Steve, Karen.
>
>We'd like to thank you for your excellent work in preparing the list of
>issues and proposed changes/updates to RFC 2401.  Hopefully the members
>of the IPSEC working group have had time to read over these lists we've
>had a week or two of unstructured discussion over the changes to the
>IPSEC processing model.
>
>However, it is now time that we go through each of the changes in a
>slightly more structured format.  To that end, Angelos has taken your
>initial list of proposed changes and put them into the Roundup issues
>tracker:
>
>                  https://roundup.machshav.com/ipsec
>
>We would appreciate it if you could look over the list of changes let us
>know if they are complete.  Then, if you could prepare a paragraph or
>two for each proposed change, so the working group can consider each
>change one at a time.  We would like to quickly, but explicitly have the
>working group approve each change to RFC 2401, one at a time.
>
>As a suggestion, we believe that issues #48 and #47 which is related to
>the addition/changes of traffic selectors in IKEv2, be worked on first,
>since they affect the IKEv2 document which is being finalized.  (As a
>reminder, we wll not add traffic selectors for ToS in IKEv2 --- see
>issue #16 --- unless we come to consensus that they should be added in
>the architecture document.  If IKEv2 is published before we come to
>consensus on issue #48, and issue #48 is adopted, this can always be
>fixed by a supplemental RFC which documents the new TOS traffic
>selector.  But this is a reason why we suggest that issue #48 be tackled
>first.)
>
>If you could post an short e-mail summarizing the costs and benefits of
>adopting the TOS Traffic Selectors to the ipsec mailing list at your
>earliest convenient to start discussion on that change, we would greatly
>appreciate it.  Hopefully we will be able to come to consensus on all of
>the changes to RFC 2401 with dispatch.
>
>                                          - Ted and Barbara

--=====================_138072878==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Hi Steve and Karen,<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>This is a friendly
ping-o-gram regarding our note to you a week ago. We would very much
appreciate it if you could take a look at the issues in the issue
tracker, check to see that we've captured all your suggested changes, and
provide to the list a brief description for each issue, submitting each
issue as a separate thread to the wg.&nbsp; At the moment, many of the
issues are single sentences that don't convey enough information for the
wg to fully understand what is being suggested.<br>
<br>
We would also like to request a time estimate for when you expect to
provide these issue descriptions/rationales to the list.&nbsp; This is
the last major work item for the working group and we would like to
complete it in the very near future.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
Barb and Ted<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite cite>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]<br>
cc: [email-masked]<br>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]<br>
Subject: Moving forward on RFC 2401-bis<br>
From: &quot;Theodore Ts'o&quot; &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
Phone: (781) 391-3464<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:25:11 -0400<br>
Sender: [email-masked]<br>
<br>
Hi Steve, Karen.<br>
<br>
We'd like to thank you for your excellent work in preparing the list
of<br>
issues and proposed changes/updates to RFC 2401.&nbsp; Hopefully the
members<br>
of the IPSEC working group have had time to read over these lists
we've<br>
had a week or two of unstructured discussion over the changes to
the<br>
IPSEC processing model.<br>
<br>
However, it is now time that we go through each of the changes in a<br>
slightly more structured format.&nbsp; To that end, Angelos has taken
your<br>
initial list of proposed changes and put them into the Roundup
issues<br>
tracker:<br>
<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><a 
href="https://roundup.machshav.com/ipsec" 
eudora="autourl">https://roundup.machshav.com/ipsec</a><br>
<br>
We would appreciate it if you could look over the list of changes let
us<br>
know if they are complete.&nbsp; Then, if you could prepare a paragraph
or<br>
two for each proposed change, so the working group can consider
each<br>
change one at a time.&nbsp; We would like to quickly, but explicitly have
the<br>
working group approve each change to RFC 2401, one at a time.<br>
<br>
As a suggestion, we believe that issues #48 and #47 which is related
to<br>
the addition/changes of traffic selectors in IKEv2, be worked on
first,<br>
since they affect the IKEv2 document which is being finalized.&nbsp; (As
a<br>
reminder, we wll not add traffic selectors for ToS in IKEv2 --- see<br>
issue #16 --- unless we come to consensus that they should be added
in<br>
the architecture document.&nbsp; If IKEv2 is published before we come
to<br>
consensus on issue #48, and issue #48 is adopted, this can always
be<br>
fixed by a supplemental RFC which documents the new TOS traffic<br>
selector.&nbsp; But this is a reason why we suggest that issue #48 be
tackled<br>
first.)<br>
<br>
If you could post an short e-mail summarizing the costs and benefits
of<br>
adopting the TOS Traffic Selectors to the ipsec mailing list at
your<br>
earliest convenient to start discussion on that change, we would
greatly<br>
appreciate it.&nbsp; Hopefully we will be able to come to consensus on
all of<br>
the changes to RFC 2401 with dispatch.<br>
<br>
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>-
Ted and Barbara</blockquote></html>

--=====================_138072878==_.ALT--