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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

On 11/29/12 9:15 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> On 11/29/12 8:51 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>> Tero Kivinen writes:
>>> My draft draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02.txt defines new way to
>>> send any type of raw public keys inside IKEv2. RFC5996 only allows
>>> sending RSA raw public keys. This means after this we would have two
>>> ways to do send RSA raw public keys, old RFC5996 and new format define
>>> din my draft.
>>>
>>> 3) Obsolete old format
>>>
>>>     Make old RFC 5996 format as MUST NOT, and officially obsolete
>>>     it. This means all implementations should switch to new format
>>>     as soon as possible. This document must be standard track, and
>>>     update RFC5996.
>>>
>>> In the discussion we did not found out that there would have been wide
>>> use for the old RFC 5996 defined RSA raw public key, so feeling was
>>> that it would be possible to obsolete the old format. It was
>>> considered a bad idea to keep two ways of doing same thing.
>>>
>>> So now I want to know if anybody have anything against if we do just
>>> that, i.e. pick the 3rd option and obsolete the old RSA raw public key
>>> format.
>>
>> As there as not been any objections to this change, I will change my
>> draft to say that RFC 5996 format is MUST NOT, and obsolete the old
>> RSA public key format. The new draft is already posted as
>> draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03.txt.
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey/
>>
>> Diff:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-02&difftype=--html&submit=Go!&url2=draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-03
>>
>>
>>> The another question is whether this document needs to be WG document
>>> or not. As it seems to be that we are updating the RFC5996 and
>>> obsoleting stuff from it, there seemed to be some people who felt that
>>> this should be WG document. Send your comments about this too.
>>
>> Only comment to this in the list was from Michael supporting of making
>> this to WG document (especially if it can fit to charter).
>>
>> Yaron said in the meeting that he was unhappy this being individual
>> since it obsoletes old format.
>>
>> So now we need a comment from the ADs and/or chairs whether they feel
>> that this fits our current charter (maintain the IPsec standard and to
>> facilitate discussion of clarifications, improvements, and extensions
>> to IPsec, mostly to IKEv2) or do we need to update the charter.
>
> The one sentence change to add this to the charter is on today's telechat.

Ugh .. I sent it in too late so it's on the next telechat.

spt