On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Please remember that it is up to the WG to define the work item. The > I-D is just a possible starting point, so if there's strong interest > in this area, you may wish to reach consensus on a charter item - and > to convince the rest of us that enough people are interested.
Yes, but that's not how the original message in this thread was worded: | Please reply to the list: | | - If this proposal is accepted as a WG work item, are you committing to | review multiple versions of the draft? | - Are you willing to contribute text to the draft? | - Would you like to co-author it? | | Please also reply to the list if: | | - You believe this is NOT a reasonable activity for the WG to spend | time on. True, you might interpret "the draft" to mean "the WG draft" as opposed to "the starting point" I-D given in that e-mail, but it wasn't sufficiently clear. Now that you've clarified, my answers are: - I am willing to review multiple versions of a WG I-D on labelled IPsec, and to contribute text. - I am not willing to co-author. - I do believe that labelled IPsec via IKE extensions is a reasonable activity for the WG. However, I do not believe the the proposed starting point is appropriate as is. I believe that an appropriate labelled-IPsec-via- IKE-extensions work item should address interoperability, which means at a minimum that for explicit labelling in IKE we should have a DOI agreement sub-protocol (i.e., both peers must understand that they have a common DOI or that they don't). I'm also interested in proposals that do CERT-based implicit labelling, but such proposals are probably more appropriately pursued elsewhere (e.g., PKIX WG). Nico -- _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
