On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eric Rescorla writes: > > I don't recall that agreement. I know that some people were in favor > > of it, but I think it's a bad idea, and I don't think there was > > anything like consensus to do it. > > During the meeting people did say that would favor for that, and I do > not remember anybody really saying otherwise either... > I though I said I was against it. > We did not really ask for consensus for that, but at least I got > impression that this is what working group would like to get (i.e. > people seemed to nod their heads when this was discussed). I.e. such > document would be preferred by the WG. > > I do understand that this is more work for you, but after making ikev2 > minimal draft myself, I actually say it is useful document to have > anyways, as it condenses the essence of protocol to core components, > and that makes it much easier to understand (even for someone who is > quite familiar with the protocol). I think it too me few hours to make > the initial version of the minimal draft > I'm not concerned about the level of effort; I'm concerned about having multiple normative references for the same protocol. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
