Hi Tero,
yes, the text you quote on IETF Review is acceptable to me. I am
basically looking for a process that will allow members of this WG to
opine on:
- Whether the spec is technically sound, interoperable etc.
- Whether the spec is secure.
- Whether it is appropriate to add it to IKEv1 (i.e. the spec would not
damage adoption of IKEv2 and would not create future issues around
migration to IKEv2).
These goals are provided by the IETF Review process as defined in 5226,
but not by the "lower" criteria.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 02/12/2012 06:34 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Yaron Sheffer writes:
No surprise at all - I used the term "non-IETF extension". As long as
your extension goes through proper IETF process/review, I'm fine with
it. I might even support it, since I agree that it adds security to
IKEv1/PSK. Other people might argue that we shouldn't confuse the
industry by adding major new pieces to IKEv1.
Does that mean thay you would accept "IETF Review", when allocating
new authentication method, but you would NOT accept "specification
required" (or "RFC required", as that include also RFC Editor
Independent submission).
The "IETF REview" do have proper IETF processes, altought a bit less
than what is for required for "Standards Action.
I assume the "Standard-track RFC" in the registry actually mean
"Standards Action" in the RFC5226 language.
The text for IETF Review from the RFC5226 says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The
intention is that the document and proposed assignment will
be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or
experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to
ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively
impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols
in an inappropriate or damaging manner.
To ensure adequate community review, such documents are
shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG)
documents with an IETF Last Call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that be acceptable for you?
Would that be acceptable for others?
That would be acceptable for me, as I just want something bit easier
than current "Standard-Track RFC", i.e. I do not want to add new
Standards to the IKEv1...
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
