Re: [HOKEY] [IPsec] New Version Notification for draft-nir-ipsecme-erx-03.txt

Yoav Nir <> Wed, 02 May 2012 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED5021E8056; Wed, 2 May 2012 12:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.341
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnDEuEDbpDK6; Wed, 2 May 2012 12:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AD921E80B7; Wed, 2 May 2012 12:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q42JWdcd021686; Wed, 2 May 2012 22:32:39 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {4FA199B0-1-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 2 May 2012 22:32:38 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <>
To: IPsecme WG <>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:32:34 +0300
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] New Version Notification for draft-nir-ipsecme-erx-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0omlSaYyDp9av3SUeV57mXxGXUuw==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
x-cpdlp: 11488f28f29961c6a1c37def0c01acc4e86985d924
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [IPsec] New Version Notification for draft-nir-ipsecme-erx-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 19:32:42 -0000

Hi again.

The response has so far been underwhelming. As I said in my previous message, I'm perfectly willing to go the individual route, but I think this would be a shame. The protocol extension described can have applications in both remote access VPN (opening multiple tunnels with multiple gateways) and in seamless roaming between remote access VPN and local area wireless networks.

I also think that it touches a lot of different areas, and would benefit from the input of people better versed than me in the needs of cellular providers and AAA.

I am CC-ing the HOKEY mailing list (as I should have done earlier) because this draft actually adapts IKE to work with their protocol, and they may be willing to review and contribute, even if this is IPsecME work.

So if any of you are interested, and are willing to review, please let us know.

Yoav & Qin

On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On Apr 12, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> We would like this working group to accept this, and have it added to charter. Of course, if it gets accepted, we volunteer to be authors. If it is not accepted, we will try to progress it as an individual submission, but we believe that this changes IKE enough that it should come from the working group.
> Statements of interest and disinterest on this document are welcome. If you prefer to make such a statement off-list please send it to me or Yaron.
> A statement of interest that include a promise to review in WG LC count for more than a bare statement of interest.