Re: [IPsec] Secure Crash Discovery for IKEv2

[Yoav Nir <ynir at checkpoint.com>]

On Sep 9, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> 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.

Sure. Just like the RoHC-over-IPsec, also not an IPSECME WG item, is  
also discussed here. Paul even said it was OK to discuss the non-WG  
items that are related to IPsec as long as we don't hog all the  
bandwidth. Of course, opinions that there's not really a problem are  
also welcome.

>> 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.

So birth certificates are the solution to this non-existing problem?
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec