Re: [IPsec] Which option to pick on draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 November 2012 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640C721F8B0B for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.82
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.82 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iPCoyA8p6FYj for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6256121F8AFA for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (dhcp-1280.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.128]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F66481A9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (quigon.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4964CCA0BC for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:46:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20633.24231.244628.939482@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
References: <20633.24231.244628.939482@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> message dated "Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:01:59 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:46:27 -0500
Message-ID: <9913.1352234787@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Which option to pick on draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:46:35 -0000

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> wrote:
    TK> The another question is whether this document needs to be WG
    TK> document or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the
    TK> RFC5996 and obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some
    TK> people who felt that this should be WG document. Send your
    TK> comments about this too.

if it can fit into the charter, and/or our AD will let us, then yes.

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-