Subject: Re: your mail

From: canetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:18:05 -0500 (EST)

I concur.

Ran

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, David A. McGrew wrote:

> Here is my personal $0.02: the change is well motivated, the solution  
> is good (it requires storing two extra keys, which seems not to be a  
> big deal), and if the spec can be rev'ed in the next couple of weeks, I  
> vote to do it.  I spoke with several people about this issue who had  
> similar sentiments.  Other opinions welcome.
> 
> David
>

---

From: "David A. McGrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:24:35 -0500

Hello,

we CFRGers need to wrap up the discussion of Hugo's proposed change to  
the IKEv2 Internet Draft (see  
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/cfrg/current/ 
msg00366.html).  This ID is close to being wrapped up, so it is  
important that we get our comments in now.

I think that the questions that CFRG ought to be answering are:

  * Is the problem significant?

  * Is proposed solution good?

  * Is revising the specification warranted?

 From Barb Fraser, I understand that the cost of delaying the IKEv2  
draft is not big - as long the change is small and can be made by the  
time that the periodic blackout on Internet Drafts is lifted on or  
around March 11th.   From what I've gathered, it should be possible to  
make this change within this timeframe (Barb, Ted, Hugo, if I'm wrong  
about this, please correct me.)

David

---

From: "David A. McGrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:21:15 -0500

CFRGers,

is there anyone with another viewpoint about Hugo's proposed changes?  
If not, we will go ahead and report this back to the IPsec WG.

thanks,

David

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:18 AM, canetti wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>