Subject: Re: [IPsec] Proposed work item: WESP extensibility - YES

From: Min Huang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:13:56 +0800

I would like to review further versions of this draft and be interested in
contributing text. 

regards,
Min 

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:18:59 +0200,  Yaron Sheffer  wrote: 
 
This draft proposes an extensibility framework for WESP, as well as several
specific extensions. 

Proposed starting point:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-montenegro-ipsecme-wesp-extensions-00.txt.

Please reply to the list:
- If this proposal is accepted as a WG work item, are you committing to
review multiple versions of the draft?
- Are you willing to contribute text to the draft?
- Would you like to co-author it?

Please also reply to the list if:
- You believe this is NOT a reasonable activity for the WG to spend time on.

If this is the case, please explain your position. Do not explore the fine
technical details (which will change anyway, once the WG gets hold of the
draft); instead explain why this is uninteresting for the WG or for the
industry at large. Also, please mark the title clearly (e.g. "DES40-export
in IPsec - NO!").

---

From: Tarun Ahuja <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:30:05 -0800

WESP already helps middleboxes and the options for in-band monitoring, 
error notification, etc are valuable. Additional options proposed by 
Brian look interesting and should be considered.

For now I commit to reviewing but might also contribute some
text to the draft, as time permits.

---

From: "Joseph Tardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:00:10 -0800

In general I find the OA&M options useful and, if the work item is accepted, would like to be a reviewer.

Thanks,
--Joe