Re: [IPsec] Virtual interim about re-designing ESP?

I support Bob's suggestion.
I also believe that multicore will be addressed by design. I do want to
have some mechanisms like [1] to be included by design. That said, I would
like [1] to start on ESPv3 and take the output back to ESPv-4 as opposed to
waiting for ESP-v4.

Interims are free, we can be flexible and have a mix of presentations /
discussions.

Yours,
Daniel

[1] ponchon-ipsecme-anti-replay-subspaces-00
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ponchon-ipsecme-anti-replay-subspaces/>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:59 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven.io@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>     >> - How should the problems be solved?
>     >>
>
>     > Once we have a list, I think we can come up with plans to tweak ESP
> to
>     > tick off our list items.
>
>     > I do think we need some short presentations for an interim. Just
> having
>     > a free flow discussion will probably not be very useful.
>
> We need a candidate list of items, then a slide / github issue per item,
> and
> then we need to discuss enough such that all people have a deep
> understanding
> of that item.
>
> It could be that we have items which were duplicate, and it could also be
> that we have goals which are really two goals.
>
> {I think we are in complete agreement about how such a virtual interim
> should go}
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson