Subject: [Ipsec] Results of straw poll regarding: IKEv2 interoperability issue

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:50:10 -0500

Two weeks ago, there was a discussion about an interoperability problem
in IKEv2 that was turned up during interoperability testing.  A week
ago, I called for a straw poll; based on the fact that the number of
responses was a little sparse, and last week was the Minneapolis IETF, I
let the straw poll go on all last week.  

The straw poll indicated a majority (although certainly not unanimity)
preference for proposal C:

	PROPOSAL C:
	-----------

	Change the places that says Transform Type 5 is optional to say
	it is mandatory.

This choice unfortunately would require making changes to the IKEv2 RFC
before it is published, and since it has already been through the IESG
approval process and almost through the entire RFC editor process,
presumably we would need to make a new I-D and then take it through most
of this process all over again --- although hopefully it would take much
less time the second time around.  

Russ, would you comment if there is anything special we need to do at
this point?   Many thanks,

						- Ted

Proposal A:
	Kevin Li <[email-masked]>
	Timothy Liu <[email-masked]>
		
Proposal C:
	Srinivasa Rao Addepalli <[email-masked]>
	Geoffrey Huang <[email-masked]>
	Michael Roe <[email-masked]>
	Grubmair Peter <[email-masked]>
	Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
	Geoffrey Huang <[email-masked]>

Proposal D:
	Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
	[email-masked]
	Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:13:27 -0500

Ted:

The fact that so few people responded to the straw poll causes alarm.  The 
issue was raised at a bake-off, and some of the implementations represented 
at the bake-off are not represented in the straw poll responses.

I have a question: Do you believe that this response represents WG 
consensus?  If so, then please prepare an RFC Editor note that describes 
the change that needs to be made, send it to me, and I will work with the 
IESG to get it approved.  If not, then we should not make any changes.

The WG chairs must judge consensus.  In this case, it is a subjective 
decision, and you may want to consult with WG participants that did not 
respond to the straw poll to figure it out.  At least one person that was 
at the bake-off has told me that they had come up with a way to achieve 
interoperability without making changes.  I think Paul Hoffman made a 
posting to the mail list about that approach half way through the straw 
poll.  This is just one more dimension of your consensus decision.

Russ