Subject: RE: Interest to have as an WG item: draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure -tunnels-03.txt

From: Tschofenig Hannes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:32:39 +0100

hi alain, 

thanks for your comment.

to show you the difference between a document that describes how to use
ikev1/ikev2 (and ipsec) to provide security of something you might also want
to look at the mip6 working group where documents exist that describe how
ikev1/ipsec is used to secure the mipv6 signaling between the mn and the ha
(and the same for ikev2): 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3776.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-00.txt

the v6ops-secure-tunnels document is of this type. we are, however, not
extendig ikev2 (luckily). 

a tutorial (as a comparison) looks like: 
http://ftp.iasi.rdsnet.ro/mirrors/nis.nsf.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ips
ec-ikev2-tutorial-01.txt

ciao
hannes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Durand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Freitag, 14. Jänner 2005 14:06
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Interest to have as an WG item: 
> draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-03.txt
> 
> Well, I'm not a security expert, far from that, so I'm not 
> sure I can comment on the quality of the security assertions.
> However, at fist glance, it seems that this is a tutorial on ikev1 &
> ikev2
> in the context of IPv6...
> I other words,  it is unclear to me why we need this document 
> in v6Ops and why it is not homed in a security related wg IF 
> there is a need for such a document.
> 
> On another note, some of the techniques described here may be 
> useful in the context of v6tc...
> 
> 	- Alain.
> 
>

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0200

Hello,

(chair hat on)
there was not an overly enthusiastic response during the two week
period. Though, the interest seems to have risen toward the end of the
period, still very few people responded. 

I would conclude that there was not enough consensus to take the
document as WG item at this point.

I hope, however, the authors of the document could continue the work.
And I would like to people read the document and comment.

Let's check the situation later if more interest raises.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:23:06 +0100

Hi Jonne, all,

This is exactly what I think is unfair and I tried to describe several
times.

In other occasions, other documents with similar level of inputs (or even
lower !) have been accepted as WG items.

Where is the limit between something being accepted and not ? If we don't
have a clear rule, then we have nothing ;-)

So are we going then to apply the same rule to those documents that have
already being accepted ? Or in the other way around, are we going to accept
this document now ?

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:48:38 +0200
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Conclusion: RE: Interest to have as an WG item:
> draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure -tunnels-03.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> (chair hat on)

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:58 +0200

Jordi,

> This is exactly what I think is unfair and I tried to describe several

I'm sorry that you find it unfair. However, I think it is fair to check
if there is support and it was not clear that there was.

> lower !) have been accepted as WG items.
For example?

> have a clear rule, then we have nothing ;-)

I think it is difficult to quantify exactly how many people you need to
have something to be accepted. However, when you actually have only one
person supporting the document (you) and the other comment (from Alain)
was a bit hesitant - it does not seem that there is good support in the
WG. 
Maybe the reason for that is that people have to read it. I hope people
would read it and discuss it in the mailing list. Then when there is
support we can have it in the WG as an item.

> already being accepted ? Or in the other way around, are we going to accept

I don't think we have added anything to the WG items by having just one
person supporting it. I believe that the document has to have some
support in the WG (multiple people speaking up and already discussion in
the mailing list). It seems that there is now some discussion started on
the mailing list, and maybe the support for the document is going to be
there soon. However, in this case there was not much support.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:41:43 +0100

Hi Jonne,

I'm not saying is not fair to check, on the other way around, I'm saying
that other documents never got the opportunity to check it.

There have been also some documents, as I recall, which have been accepted
as WG items with small support. For example, more emails from the same
people doesn't mean more support. But also for me doesn't make difference to
have support from 2 people or from 5. How many we are in this WG ? Should we
have support at least from a 10% or may be a 25% ? Definitively not just
from a 2-3% ! You don't think so ?

Oh yes, the question, who counts for "how many we are in this WG?" ... Is
just those that speak up from time to time in the list ? Then we are less
than 15-20 people ? Or is everybody subscribed ? Or everybody attending the
meetings ?

If we don't define clear rules, nothing is fair, I guess :-(

Regards,
Jordi

> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:58 +0200
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Re:Conclusion: RE: Interest to have as an WG item:
http://ftp.iasi.rdsnet.ro/mirrors/nis.nsf.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ip>>>>
s
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Jonne Soininen
> Nokia
> 
> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34