Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote:
> FWIW, I think this is the wrong decision. Both the working group and
> apparently the market have shown a desire for a dynamic, large-scale
> VPN, and we have enough people willing to do work on a solution.
> Yes, there are some designs floating around and some implementations at
> various levels of maturity, and there was a lot of controversy. Not
> coming up with a single, standard design will lead to multiple
> non-interoperable implementations, a fragmented market, and vendor
> lock-in, which runs contrary to the mission of the IETF to make the
> Internet better. Implementers will be forced to either “choose sides”
> or worse, implement more than one design, and lacking a standard
> document, much of the actual protocol will be either vendor-specific or
> reverse-engineered.
I think that the chairs were underwelmed by the number of comments and the
amount of review that the proposals got. Yes, I know that you, and I and
Tero had opinions, but that was pretty much it.
My impression is that the people who *want* a solution to this are not
satisfied unless certain *critical* parties agree to come to the table. As
such, going forward with any standard which does not include those
parties takes a lot of effort, and, yet results in the same bad situation
that you mention.
I would rather one design.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
