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

[Sheela Rowles <[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.

Paul,

Who would make this decision - that the spec is open for change vs being closed?

thanks,
Sheela


> 
> >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
> 
> 
> 
>