On May 26, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. There were a few others: Steve Kent, Brian Weis, Andreas Steffen, and Paul Wouters, plus some people who hadn’t participated in the WG before. Those who are draft authors (about 10 of us all told) were told to stay out of the discussion. > 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. One is better than three. One is also much better than zero. Yoav _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
