Hi, After a discussion on the scope of this draft, I decided to change my opinion regarding what I said during the IETF meeting: now, I am ready to review the draft but no more to contribute to it.
Best regards. JMC. 2009/11/29 Yaron Sheffer <yar...@checkpoint.com>: > This work item will define the problem statement and requirements for a > solution that allows interoperable HA/LS device groups. Mixed-vendor > clusters are specifically out of scope; but single-vendor clusters should be > fully interoperable with other vendors’ devices or clusters. The main > challenge is to overcome the strict use of sequence numbers in both IPsec > and IKE, in HA and LS scenarios. Following the Hiroshima discussion, the WI > is initially focused on defining the problem, rather than a particular > solution. > > > > Proposed starting point: > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nir-ipsecme-ipsecha-00.txt. > > > > 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. > > > > If this is the case, please explain your position. Do not explore the fine > technical details (which will change anyway, once the WG gets hold of the > draft); instead explain why this is uninteresting for the WG or for the > industry at large. Also, please mark the title clearly (e.g. "DES40-export > in IPsec - NO!"). > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
