mail archive Discussion of IPsec protocols
ipsec.ietf.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (187 other Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) lists)
Subscription Options
- RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
- Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
- Low traffic list: less than 3 messages per day
- This list contains about 1,617 messages, beginning Mar 2011
- 0 messages added yesterday
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no
IPsecME meeting - call for agenda items
Ad
Hi, According to the draft agenda, the working group will be meeting in Vancouver on Tuesday afternoon. Please let Paul and I know if you would like a presentation slot. As usual, we expect any technical presentation to be based on an Internet draft. Thanks,  _place_holder; _place_holder; _place_holder; Yaron
Here is the proposed agenda; let us know if you think it should be different. Greetings, note well, blue sheets: 5 min draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem: 60 min draft-nir-ipsecme-ike-tcp: 15 min --Paul Hoffman
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Here is the proposed agenda; let us know if you think it should be different. > > Greetings, note well, blue sheets: 5 min > draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem: 60 min > draft-nir-ipsecme-ike-tcp: 15 minShould we add an item for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipse... ? Paul
On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Here is the proposed agenda; let us know if you think it should be different.
>>
>> Greetings, note well, blue sheets: 5 min
>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem: 60 min
>> draft-nir-ipsecme-ike-tcp: 15 min
>
> Should we add an item for:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipse... ?There has been no discussion of the draft since the last meeting, and none of the authors asked for a slot, so I didn't schedule it initially. Do either of the authors have something relevant to say in the meeting?
--Paul Hoffman
Paul Hoffman writes: > On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: > >> Here is the proposed agenda; let us know if you think it should be different. > >> Greetings, note well, blue sheets: 5 min > >> draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem: 60 min > >> draft-nir-ipsecme-ike-tcp: 15 min > > > > Should we add an item for: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipse... ? > > There has been no discussion of the draft since the last meeting, > and none of the authors asked for a slot, so I didn't schedule it > initially. Do either of the authors have something relevant to say > in the meeting?We had some discussion in the last IETF, but we did got cut a bit short in the presentation with the problems with power... Anyways, I think the question is most likely what are we going to do with the old Raw RSA certificate type and that also affects whether we should be standard track or not. I think more people in the present in the WG meeting preferred to just obsolete the old format, but this is something that should be confirmed on the list. I have been bit too busy lately to be able to work on this, but I will try to get this one going forward too.
On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>> Here is the proposed agenda; let us know if you think it should be different.
>>>> Greetings, note well, blue sheets: 5 min
>>>> draft-ietf-ipsecme-p2p-vpn-problem: 60 min
>>>> draft-nir-ipsecme-ike-tcp: 15 min
>>>
>>> Should we add an item for:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipse... ?
>>
>> There has been no discussion of the draft since the last meeting,
>> and none of the authors asked for a slot, so I didn't schedule it
>> initially. Do either of the authors have something relevant to say
>> in the meeting?
>
> We had some discussion in the last IETF, but we did got cut a bit
> short in the presentation with the problems with power...
>
> Anyways, I think the question is most likely what are we going to do
> with the old Raw RSA certificate type and that also affects whether we
> should be standard track or not.
>
> I think more people in the present in the WG meeting preferred to just
> obsolete the old format, but this is something that should be
> confirmed on the list.
>
> I have been bit too busy lately to be able to work on this, but I will
> try to get this one going forward too.You did not answer the question of "Do either of the authors have something relevant to say in the meeting?". If something has not been discussed on the list in three or four months, I'm not sure what the value of doing so in the meeting is.
--Paul Hoffman