Re: WG Last call: draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-gss-auth-05.txt

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 05:57 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Sheela Rowles wrote:
>My understanding is that the isakmp-gss draft is an informational draft,
>that basically documents one vendor's implementation (Microsoft).
>As it turns out, we are also implementing the draft (we = Cisco),
>and so wondered if this should be considered as a future RFC rather
>than an informational draft.   Is there anyone else out there
>who plans to implement this?

The fact that more than one company is implementing from the draft is not 
the deciding factor for whether it should go on standards track. If the 
spec is not open to change (such as if it is a description of how the 
originating company implemented the protocol), it should be an 
Informational RFC. If the spec is open for change and better design, it 
might be appropriate on standards track.

>In any case, since this is an informational draft (documenting
>Microsoft's work in this area, the draft needs to be modified
>to reflect some differences between the draft and Microsoft's
>current implementation:

Exactly right. Anything in the spec that doesn't match Microsoft's 
implementation should be fixed during this last-call phase.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium