Re: [IPsec] Calls for adoption: wrap-up

Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Fri, 12 December 2014 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2631AC40E for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:50:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wU_W6P90N7_V for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703731A907D for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vanmetedneysmbp.wireless.duke.local (west-4b-pat-1.oit.duke.edu [152.3.43.164]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 069162781B5; Sat, 13 Dec 2014 03:50:35 +0900 (JST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <BF0A8BF5-AD93-4321-B0CD-1457038EA14D@vpnc.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:50:31 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9324C11F-E4B9-4464-871E-A94F18D54346@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <BF0A8BF5-AD93-4321-B0CD-1457038EA14D@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/qQgALkC0aLk6-KhJmnVBP96T95U
Cc: Rodney Van Meter <rdv@sfc.wide.ad.jp>, IPsecME WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Calls for adoption: wrap-up
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:50:44 -0000

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
> Greetings. A few weeks ago, we started summaries for adoption by the WG of two drafts: draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd and draft-mglt-ipsecme-clone-ike-sa. This message concludes that there is not sufficient interest in the WG (that is, enough people who will actively contribute to the draft progression) for either draft to be advance successfully.
> 
> Both drafts had some interest from people other than the authors, but it seemed like a fair amount of that was defensive; that is, those people were willing to work on the document, but mostly to prevent bad design, not because they supported the use case. Given that, if the authors of either decide to pursue publication, it would be great if they reached out to all the people on the list who expressed opinions and try to incorporate those before moving forwards. Notes about new versions of these drafts (and other non-WG drafts) are still welcome on the list as long as they do not disrupt the ongoing WG work.
> 

For draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd, that list is:
Tero Kivinen
Michael Richardson
Paul Wouters
Tony Putman
Valery Smyslov
Sheila Frankel didn’t respond on list in the last couple of weeks, but I’m guessing she has at least a passing interest.
plus of course the authors (Shota Nagayama & Rod Van Meter)

Anybody else care to speak up?

Shota is still trying to ingest the comments we got both on and off list over the last few weeks; he has already responded to a few comments on the ML.  I hope we’ll have a coherent response to all of them, and a draft-of-a-draft to share with a small group, Real Soon Now (er, sometime in January, probably).

It does seem that there was the most support for generalizing to other out-of-band mechanisms, so I presume we will pursue that and make the QKD interpretation an Annex or Appendix to the document.

So, we’ll take this conversation off list, and come back when we are close to the -02 I-D.

			—Rod