Re: [Pana] status of wg documents

Hi Glen,

Your willingness to take on the editorship of this I-D had been noted.
However here are a few reasons why I think it is better to drop working on
this I-D:
1. The I-D has not been revised since 2005. It is not just editorial
corrections that need to be made. The base protocol itself has evolved quite
a bit since 2005. Additionally there were review comments received in 2005
which were never addressed. And from my recollection, these were not just
editorial ones.

2. I do not expect to receive reviews from WG members even if the I-D were
to be updated. Hence taking a document to the IESG for publication without
sufficient reviews is futile.

3. The WG is better off using whatever cycles of energy are left on
completing any other I-Ds which are considered more useful w.r.t PANA.

As I have said in an earlier email, I do not see IPsec essentially being
used as a means to secure the access link (between the PaC and EP). Either
the link technology itself has its own security mechanism or the client
simply uses IPsec VPNs if security is desired. There is no real
justification for this solution now. This conclusion is derived from
discussions and work over the past few years in PANA.

-Raj

On 6/5/09 11:08 PM, "ext Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:

> Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com writes:
> 
>> Hi Jari,
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/3/09 6:21 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Draft-ietf-pana-ipsec: what's up with this? If I remember correctly,
>> we
>>> talked about finding an editor and there were some volunteers. Has a
>>> decision been reached on who is doing the edits? Secondly, we talked
>>> about what needs to be done with the draft, and at least one issue
>> was
>>> identified about the selection of keys. I have not seen a conclusion
>>> from this thread, nor any updates to the draft. Are we ready to make
>> the
>>> conclusion, or is more discussion needed? Can people go through the
>>> draft identify other remaining issues?
>> 
>> Regarding this I-D, I do not believe there is sufficient interest or
>> energy
>> to complete the work.
> 
> That's an interesting statement.  Upon what evidence is it based: the fact
> that at least one person volunteered to edit the draft?  Perhaps the
> apparently general agreement that there are no major technical issues with
> it & that all the changes needed are editorial (the only technical issue I
> could find was one w/Yoshi's key derivation draft, successfully quashed by
> Alper)?
> 
>> Hence rather than being bogged down in the
>> process of
>> updating the I-D and progressing it, it would be best to drop this I-D
>> from
>> the WG charter and let it expire.
> 
> I could have sworn that being thus "bogged down" was the major purpose of
> IETF WGs! 
> 
>> I will send another note to the ML
>> and
>> ensure there is consensus on this decision.
> 
> I think you already did, or will I need to recapitulate this response?
> 
>> 
>> -Raj
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pana mailing list
>>> Pana@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pana mailing list
>> Pana@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
> 
> 