Re: ESP revisions straw poll

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 20 May 1997 22:20 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10623; 20 May 97 18:20 EDT
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16050; 20 May 97 18:20 EDT
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id SAA01823 for ipsec-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 18:06:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com
Message-Id: <v03007833afa7804e626e@[128.89.0.110]>
In-Reply-To: <199705201542.LAA03958@jekyll.piermont.com>
References: Your message of "Tue, 20 May 1997 11:20:33 EDT." <v0300782dafa7701b9351@[128.89.0.110]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:12:57 -0400
To: perry@piermont.com
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Perry,

	I don't intend to ride roughshood over IETF procedures, and I
believe my characterization of how the straw poll is being conducted is
consistent with how this WG has conducted such polls in the past.  As for
the Memphis IETF meeting, I have been informed that the second day
implementors meeting did express a clear, overwhelming intent to not
support auth-only ESP.  No argument there  However, consistent with IETF
procedures, that decision is not the final say for the WG.  I could observe
that when I briefed the WG attendees at the San Jose meeting there seemed
to be support FOR this mode of ESP. (I admit that the minutes from that
meeting don't do a great job of recording all the details, but a completely
modular ESP was part of the presentation that I gave.  It's also a pity
that the proceedings don't include those slides!)  That previous show of
support (in San Jose) clearly was not the last word, else we could argue
that the matter was closed at that point, four months earlier than the
Memphis meetings.

Steve