Re: [IPsec] Secure Crash Discovery for IKEv2

[Tero Kivinen <kivinen at iki.fi>]

Yoav Nir writes:
> Despite this, we still believe this is important for IKE  
> implementations, and would like to proceed. A "nightmare scenario" for  
> us is to have two competing non-interoperable standards. We had hoped,  
> that even though this is not a charter item, and we can't call on the  
> group to force a consensus, that we'd hear from enough people to get a  
> feel for the opinion of the WG.

So are we planning to run all NON-WG items also through the WG, or
would it be better to first discuss here whether there is problem that
needs to be solved in the WG and if there is problem, then put solving
that problem to charter AFTER we have finshed first items in the
current charter.

> So we're asking the participants of this WG again for their opinion  
> about the two (well, three if you include birth certificates) options  
> for solving the de-synchronization problem.

I myself think birth certificates would be the best option, but as I
have been to busy with other working group items I have not been able
to start thinking this issue yet.
-- 
kivinen at safenet-inc.com
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec