Subject: [anonsec] BTNS BOF summary

From: weiler at tislabs.com (Samuel Weiler)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:26:33 -0500 (EST)

First, I would like to thank our scribe, Yushun Wang, for taking
wonderful minutes both at this BOF an the previous one in DC -- he has
already provided me with a "draft" copy of Monday's minutes that far
exceeds most WG's final minutes.  I'd also like to thank our ADs for
providing well-defined questions for the BOF to answer -- I think
those really helped us to stay focused.

The BTNS BOF uncovered no signifigant issues in the proposed charter.
There were sufficient volunteers for each of the work items to provide
some assurance that the work could get done.  Those present raised no
objection to an aggressive set of milestones that included initial
drafts of all documents in two months and advancing all docs to the
IESG within nine months (implying that the last of the docs will be in
WG last call during the Vancouver meeting).

An announcement of the proposed WG was sent to the ietf-announce list
on Tuesday, with comments due to the IESG by March 16.

-- Sam

---

From: hartmans-ietf at mit.edu (Sam Hartman)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:03:14 -0500

Your summary seems inaccurate.  It sounded to me like there was a
strong consensus behind a new charter requirement that traditional
IPsec work along side BTNS.

---

From: weiler at tislabs.com (Samuel Weiler)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:20:35 -0500 (EST)

> IPsec work along side BTNS.

That's what I get for trying to do that summary in too little time.

You're entirely correct, Sam.

I'd phrase it more as "there was a strong preference for a new
requirement that it be possible to build an implementation that can
simultaneouly do BTNS and traditional IPsec".  There were, however, a
signifigant number (maybe seven hands?) that expressed no
interest that requirement -- that would be happy with a BTNS that
could not peacefully coexist with traditional IPsec.  I'd be a little
hesitant to call that _strong_ consensus.

-- Sam