Subject: RE: [newtrk] question about repurposing-isd-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 22:55:20 +0200

Michael,

This is my 2 cents:

> I think that we would not issue a new ISD for IPsec.
> 
> Now, how does an RFP specify things? 
> (Section 10 talks about what a vendor can/might do.)

An RFP would specify the ISD that covers IPsec.  That ISD
would contain the metadata needed to specify IPsec.

> Should it ask for "ISD-2401" as the stable identifier, when they really
> mean that they want the functionality of RFC2401 (and friends, including
> probably IKE, without 1DES, but with 3DES and AES). But, they do not
> care if they get 64-bit replay counters, or and of the useful, but new
> ideas in RFC2401bis. They also didn't require IKEv2.
> 
> i.e. they *REQUIRE* the stable, full-standard-ish subset of IPsec.
> Next year, when IKEv2 implementations become available, they may be
> happy to have that, but they still need IKEv1. 
> 
> Maybe some feel it isn't the IETF's job to make the life of procurement
> people easier. No point in having stable identifiers that aren't useful
> to people. If we want to make this work, it has to work well enough that
> it can be used in an RFP. Marketing people will then see it, and the
> result is that they new nomenclature will get used.
> 
> So, it seems that the RFP will have to say "ISD-2401 January 1, 2005",
> as suggested by section 10.

Agree.
 
> a) Does this document intend obsolete the "STD" series process?

It renders the STD series unnecessary.
 
> b) I think that the first ISD issued should be for the RFC2026/BCP0009.
>    series :-)

I believe Mr. Bradner has the pen.
 
> c) do ISDs get issued as internet drafts for comment before the archive
>    is updated?

No, but we may need to work out procedural issues on how ISDs get
approved, perhaps via IESG last call.
 
> d) will the ISDs have a DTD and associated .xml version?

Yes, I think that is the working assumption.

John

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 07:42:50 -0500

> I believe Mr. Bradner has the pen.

I believe the 2026 cluster is different enough from the technical standard 
that creating the ISD concept so that it fits well with 2026 is a 
mistake.... that is not saying that we don't need to document the procedure 
cluster (we DO!), but that it's a bad example to use for ISDs.

               harald

.