Paul Hoffman writes: > Greetings again. We have a 2-hour time slot in Atlanta, which is way > more than we asked for. We don't need to be talking about > draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem because it's finished with WG LC > and is being sent to the AD for review. This is a call for agenda > items. Strong preference is given to those which are in the WG > charter.
draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem? I assume you mean draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-00? I did send quite a lot of comments to the draft at 2012-09-10, and I have not seen those taken into the draft yet. Also as I noted in my email I am quite sure we are still missing some requirements, but as the current document is bit hard to read with the terminology of different nodes, hubs, endpoints etc so it is bit hard to understand if all requirements are there or not. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg07910.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg07914.html I myself do think that the draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-00 is NOT yet ready, I have been waiting for the next version of the document before rereading it. > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ike-tcp-00 is already on the agenda, and > hopefully there will be more discussion of it before the meeting My draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal-01 will be moving to the lwig WG, so there is no need to discuss it here, and the draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-01 would need the straw poll of which option we are going to do and we need to do that on the email list anyways, so there is no point of discussing that in the meeting (unless people are unsure what the options are, and what they mean). -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
