Subject: [Ipsec] Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE status

From: David Wierbowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:42:29 -0400

Back in April the IESG approved 'Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE '
<draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard.  Any update on
when the rfc draft will be published?  Draft 8 expired on July 10th and it
would be nice to be able to implement to the official RFC draft.  There are
little things like changing payload IDs and the official VID that never
seemed to have gotten finalized.

Dave Wierbowski

z/OS Comm Server Developer

 Phone:
    Tie line:   620-4055
    External:  607-429-4055

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

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:23:58 -0700

>seemed to have gotten finalized.

The NAT-T draft is waiting for draft-ietf-ipsec-udp-encaps, which is 
waiting for a new version to deal with many comments from the IESG. 
See 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=7148&rfc_flag=0> 
for the issues on the latter Internet Draft.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Dan McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:08:07 -0400

> for the issues on the latter Internet Draft.

I saw.  The last update of any sort appears to be more than two months ago.

Are we waiting for authors?  IESG?  Both?  It's not very clear where the
bottleneck is.

Dan

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:12:51 +0300

> Are we waiting for authors?  IESG?  Both?  It's not very clear where the

I have been trying to resolve the problem for some time now, but
without success. There has been going on some discussion between the
IESG and authors (or actually me, even though I am not author of that
draft). Some of the discuss items have been cleared out, but there are
still some remaining. We are trying to solve them as soon as possible.

I think the problem mostly has been that I know that some kind of
change is required to the draft, but I am not sure what change would
be ok, and enough to get it forward, so thats why we are still
discussing. 
-- 
[email-masked]