I'd like to point out that section 3 is kind of skeletal at this point, and I expect that in the final document, each bullet point will be expanded to its own subsection. I think in the end, section 3 will contain most of the volume of the document.
We've found that (at least in our opinion) most of the problems in the PS document can be addressed with a particular interpretation of the existing standards, rather than new protocol extensions. The exception is expanded in section 4. In future iterations of the document (hopefully as a WG document) each of the bullet points in section 3 will be expanded to a subsection with MUSTs and SHOULDs for both the cluster implementation and its peers. Of course, discussion in the group may lead to a realization that creative interpretation of existing documents is not enough. In that case more extension can be proposed and added to the document, much the same way that more problems were added to the PS draft after Anaheim. On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 8:26 PM +0300 7/19/10, Yaron Sheffer wrote: >> Sec. 3 of the draft lists each of the issues described in the Problem >> Statement, and explains how it is resolved. > > Exactly right. The question to the group is: do you agree with the matching? > If not, what do you see as the differences? > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
