Re: [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - RFCs to add/delete
<Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> Mon, 15 March 2010 12:10 UTC
Return-Path: <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EB13A6BD9 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R20vopl3NfeR for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70A43A6985 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o2FBghe2025223; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:42:50 +0200
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:42:42 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:42:42 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:42:41 +0100
From: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
To: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, ipsec@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:42:40 +0100
Thread-Topic: [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - RFCs to add/delete
Thread-Index: Acq/t6FmxC2X4ya9QKiVBCBMzegk4gEfDu4Q
Message-ID: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB775848477F2D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C49307964A8F09@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov> <p06240817c7bc447183f4@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240817c7bc447183f4@[10.20.30.158]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2010 11:42:42.0339 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F4C1F30:01CAC434]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - RFCs to add/delete
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:10:53 -0000
Paul Hoffman wrote: > >several groups of RFCs that Pasi wants us to remove: > > > >1) RFCs that define how to configure IPsec for use in other > > protocols, but don't modify/extend how IPsec works (We would prefer > > to keep these in the roadmap): > > > > 8.1.1. RFC 4093, Problem Statement: Mobile IPv4 Traversal of > > Virtual Private Network (VPN) Gateways > > 8.1.2. RFC 5265, Mobile IPv4 Traversal across IPsec-Based VPN > > Gateways > > 8.1.5. RFC 5213, Proxy Mobile IPv6 > > 8.1.6. RFC 5268, Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers > > 8.1.7. RFC 5380, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) Mobility > > Management > > 8.2.1. RFC 4552, Authentication/Confidentiality for OSPFv3 > > I agree with Sheila and Suresh, and disagree with Pasi: these should > stay in the roadmap. IPsec implementers should be aware that these > other IETF protocols have specific profiles for IPsec. Well, my question was more about why list *these* particular Mobile IP protocol features, and not several MIP features, and several other protocols (Diameter, RADIUS, TGREP, iSCSI, ...) that also have specific profiles for IPsec? Best regards, Pasi
- [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - RFCs … Frankel, Sheila E.
- Re: [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - R… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [IPsec] Pasi's AD comments on roadmap doc - R… Pasi.Eronen