Subject: Re: [Mip6] Justifications for standardizing draft-ietf-mip6-auth-protocol-00.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:56:21 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   I don't quite understand this.  IKEv2 is basically done.  It's past a
   couple of IESG evaluations and revisions.  Currently, the I-D tracker
   says it's in "Approved-announcement to be sent :: Point Raised -
   writeup needed" -state, meaning that there is a minor or two issues
   which need to be written out before sending it for publication as an
   RFC.  The IESG has already basically approved it.
   
=> I can't forget it took a lot of months for RFC 3775 and 3776 from
drafts to RFCs.

   So, AFAICS, the standardization status of IKEv2 should not be an
   issue.  There may be other issues with IKEv2 (such as implementation,
   number of messages, integration with AAA systems, etc.) but those are 
   the issues which can be discussed.
   
=> IMHO the main issue is the lack of implementations, in particular
open source implementations (for IKEv1 we have at least 3 well known
implementations: racoon, isakmpd and pluto). And the RFC 2401bis is
not trivial at all... Of course, I'd like to be wrong.

Thanks

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:40:55 +0200

I answer to my own message because IKEv2 draft is in last call (cf
a very recent announce from the IESG)!

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:46:28 +0300 (EEST)

> a very recent announce from the IESG)!

s/in last call/was just approved for publication as RFC/ :)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:48:22 +0300 (EEST)

> => I can't forget it took a lot of months for RFC 3775 and 3776 from

True, though the critical part was the IANA assignments -- which was, 
I believe, an IANA organizational problem which is now fixed.

Further, if there are particular reasons why the publication needs to
be fast-tracked (e.g., 3GPP2 deadlines or whatever, I don't know), I'm
sure the IESG can listen to reason if needed, and send a note to the
RFC-editor/IANA to put certain documents "in front of the queue".  
This has happened before, I think.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:31:39 -0700

> This has happened before, I think.

Yes, the IESG and RFC Editor have a system for fast-tracking documents. It
was used for some 3GPP documents. However, it does require that the other
SDO make a specific request for the documents to be accelerated.

            jak

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:51:11 +0200

=> oops, it was too late in the night. I apologize...
BTW is there an open source implementation in an advanced state?

Thanks