Re: [netext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charlie,

On 8/28/14 12:42 AM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I am basically O.K. with the suggested.  A couple of minor points:
> 
> - "any standard security negotiation protocols" -- should this be
> restricted to IETF
>     protocols?  What is the difference between a "security negotiation
> protocol"
>     and a "security protocol"?  Shouldn't we allow static configuration
> in some
>     circumstances for some installations?
> 
> - "make the use of IPsec as optional"  -->  "does not require the use of
> IPsec"
>         or, maybe, "specifies that the use of IPsec is optional"
> 
> Is it the consensus of those involved here that this change does not
> require
> input from the working group?

Not at all, that is why the WG mailing list is copied on these
discussions.  As the shepherding AD, I want to make sure that the
discussion with the dissenting AD is resolved.  If WG members disagree
with the proposed changes, they are free to raise that disagreement.  If
the resulting changes are substantive, I will ask the chairs to review
those changes with the WG prior to any publication approval.

Regards,
Brian