Re: Next Step
Avram Shacham <shacham@cisco.com> Tue, 03 February 1998 22:12 UTC
Return-Path: shacham@cisco.com
Received: from bubbuh.cisco.com (bubbuh.cisco.com [198.92.30.35]) by ftp-eng.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA00267 for <ippcp-archive-file@ftp-eng.cisco.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:12:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pita.cisco.com (pita.cisco.com [171.71.68.13]) by bubbuh.cisco.com (8.8.4-Cisco.1/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with ESMTP id OAA21138 for <ippcp@external.cisco.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shacham-home-pc-4.cisco.com (shacham-home-pc-4.cisco.com [171.69.149.181]) by pita.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA26398; Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19980203220645.006c2e64@pita.cisco.com>
X-Sender: shacham@pita.cisco.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:06:45 -0800
To: Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@baynetworks.com>, ippcp@external.cisco.com
From: Avram Shacham <shacham@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Next Step
At 12:04 PM 2/2/98 -0500, Naganand Doraswamy wrote: >We are pretty close to getting the architecture draft through IESG. As we >discussed earlier, all the algorithm documents should become informational >RFC. I would like these forwarded to the IESG before the LA IETF. Right now >we have two drafts- > >1. draft-ietf-ippcp-lzs-02.txt As Bob Monsour stated, this document is not updated. >2. draft-ietf-ippcp-deflate-01.txt > >Are there any other comments on this? If not, I would like to submit these >for last calls to be published as Informational RFC's. > >We also need to decide if there is any need to meet at LA. I do not think >we have any additional work at this point. If anybody has work item that >they feel requires a meeting at LA please let me know. I will have to >request for a slot. If I do not hear from anybody, I will assume there is >no need to meet at LA. I agree that the only reason to meet is to celebrate the fact that the WG met all the objectives, goals and milestones (!), as defined in its charter. >We need to push for interoperability at the next IPsec workshop and I guess >this is already happenning. The best way to present implementations is to take part in the bake-offs. Could the implementors, who plan to attend the 3-98 IPSec/IPComp bake-off, describe the capabilities of their implementations? For example: compression algorithm(s) supported, negotiation mechanisms, and any other detail that can make the interoperability test a success. avram
- Next Step Naganand Doraswamy
- RE: Next Step Roy Pereira
- Re: Next Step Bob Monsour
- Re: Next Step Bob Monsour
- RE: Next Step Roy Pereira
- Re: Next Step Avram Shacham
- Re: Next Step Daniel Harkins
- Re: Next Step Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: Next Step Daniel Harkins
- Re: Next Step Steve Sneddon
- Re: Next Step Naganand Doraswamy
- Re: Next Step Daniel Harkins
- Re: Next Step Avram Shacham