On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> In the Maastricht meeting there was just a tiny bit of interest in the
> failure detection idea (reminder: the goal is to ensure that one peer
> discovers that the other IKE peer has restarted, within a short time
> duration, milliseconds instead of minutes). But we didn't see enough
> interest to justify having this as a WG item. So, one last time: if you
> think this is a worthwhile idea, regardless of the proposals on the
> table, please say so publicly. If you speak up, we will expect you to
> contribute to the selection of the preferred document.
I think it comes as no surprise that I think it's a worthwhile idea, and that I
am willing to contribute to the selection. The idea for this came to me not out
of idle analysis of the IKEv2 RFC, but from a bug report from my company's QA
department ("it takes 2 minutes for the tunnel to come back up after we clear
the SAs")
> If this is of no interest, fine. But if it is an important problem to
> solve and we don't take it on, we could end up with competing non-WG
> proposals. Which would be far from ideal.
We are already there with competing non-WG proposals. I think it is the IPsecME
working group that should decide between them. The alternative to the working
group deciding this is to dump this in the AD's lap, which IMHO is worse.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
