Paul Hoffman writes: > If you agree with the need to standardize this usage, and believe > that draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd is likely to be a good > starting place for that standardization, and are willing to review > and contribute text to the document if it is adopted by the WG, > please say so on the list.
I think we should standardize this usage, and that draft might be good starting point (I do have quite a lot of comments to it, I will sent out shortly). > This WG has a history of adopting documents but then not having > enough reviewers for us to feel confident that we are making a good > standard, so we need to see a reasonable number of actively > interested people before we adopt the document. If it is not > adopted, the authors can ask for it to be published as an RFC > through individual submission or by the Independent Submissions > Editor. Either due through this working group or through individual submission would be fine. I do not like documenting extensions to the standard track protocol through independed submissions editor, especially if the idea is to make such extension standard used between multiple vendors. Some vendor just wanting to document their own way of doing something would be fine through ISE, but if I have understood correctly the reason this effor is ongoing is to make extension that can be used between multiple vendors. For such effort IETF stream would be better. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
