This time coming from the co-chair. We have not gotten enough interest from
non-authors (or the folks who work for vendors sponsoring the proposals) to
feel comfortable declaring consensus. We really want to hear from more of the
hundreds of people on the mailing list before we declare consensus or give up
at this late date.
=================================
Dear IPsecME folks,
There is clear working group interest in a standard auto-discovery VPN
solution. We have agreed-upon requirements [1]. And we have 3 serious
contenders [2] [3] [4] for the solution. It is time to select a protocol to
adopt into the working group.
We would like to ask people who are *not* authors on any of the solution drafts
to send a short message to the list, saying which of the three they prefer, and
a few reasons for their choice.
Please do *not* send mail saying which of the protocols you do *not* like -
this would be far less useful. And please do not think up a new solution
proposal, it's too late for that.
A quick process reminder: once we adopt a protocol, it becomes the starting
point for the working group document. The WG can change the editor team and is
free to make material changes to the protocol before it is published as RFC.
Thanks,
Paul and Yaron
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7018
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mao-ipsecme-ad-vpn-protocol-02
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sathyanarayan-ipsecme-advpn-03
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-detienne-dmvpn-00
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
