[Softwires] RE: Preparatory to WGLC draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels

"Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com> Tue, 07 November 2006 08:24 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhMG1-00061j-MR; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:24:33 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhMG0-00061Z-IN for softwires@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:24:32 -0500
Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com ([208.17.35.58] helo=cable.comcast.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhMFu-0007YJ-9L for softwires@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:24:32 -0500
Received: from ([10.52.116.10]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-TDCH7.27283887; Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:24:11 -0500
Received: from PACDCEXCMB05.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.116]) by PAOAKEXCRLY01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 03:24:10 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:24:09 -0500
Message-ID: <EF2F0EC839870F43A6637360BC12ABD45D37F2@PACDCEXCMB05.cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Preparatory to WGLC draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels
Thread-Index: AccCHBiHE3fg4h+VRkOcBjIjS8CZpQAKOV+A
From: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2006 08:24:10.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[19F21410:01C70246]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Cc: yokota@kddilabs.jp, Shu Yamamoto <sy-yamamoto@cn.kddilabs.jp>, Florent Parent <florent.parent@mac.com>, softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires] RE: Preparatory to WGLC draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: softwires-bounces@ietf.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Lindqvist Erik Kurt
> Subject: Preparatory to WGLC draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels
> 
> This draft has had something of a tortured history, and hit a 
> bump this morning in v6ops. Next week I plan to issue a 
> working group last call on it (repeat from one about a year 
> ago) barring significant issues, and send it to the IESG. 
> However, one issue came up that I would like a clear opinion 
> from the working group on.
> 
> It describes the use of IPv6 in IPv6 and IPv4 tunnels, but 
> does not describe IPv4 in IPv6 or IPv4 tunnels. Alain Durand 
> is of the opinion that, since IPSEC is independent of the two 
> technologies, the additional work needed to make it cover the 
> case is nominal. He also thinks that it would be useful to 
> him operationally. However, the authors have not looked into 
> that, and suspect that it would require some think time and a 
> number of small changes to the draft.
> 
> If we do the work, I think that fairness to the authors calls 
> for Alain to contribute to the analysis and the editorial 
> work, at least in helping identify the edits required.
> 
> Please, I'd like an up-down decision here - drop kurt and I a 
> note privately indicating whether you think the work is 
> warranted or whether this draft should go forward as is.


 
Fred,

For the record, I'm not asking this change with my employer's hat,
but with my softwire co-chair hat.

We have a security document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-security-requir
ements-01.txt)
in our wg that would gretly benefit from referencing
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels
both in the context of v6 over v4 and v4 over v6, as our wg charter is
to address
both cases.

I've asked the authors of our document (Cced here) to look at
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels
and identify what would need to be changed there. I would hope this
analysis could
be done quickly to help you decide if it is worth making this last
minute change
to your document for the benefit of the larger community.

   - Alain.

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires