Subject: [IPsec] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:34:11 +0200

This begins a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol. You can find the current version at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol-04. We 
want everyone in the WG to read the document and comment on it, even if 
the comment is "I support this" or "I am neutral on this". If you oppose 
moving the draft forwards, or you have technical changes you want made, 
please be explicit in your message. Feel free to start new threads if 
you are objecting or suggesting changes. The authors will manage any 
such discussions using the issue tracker.

The WG previously reached consensus on a problem statement for IPsec 
High Availability, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6027. You may wish to 
refer to that RFC, first, to frame the problem, and second, to convince 
yourselves that the current document actually addresses it in full.

Thanks,
     Yaron

---

From: Pekka Riikonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:23:21 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Yaron Sheffer wrote:

: This begins a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol. You can find the current version at 
: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsecha-protocol-04. We 
: want everyone in the WG to read the document and comment on it, even if 
: the comment is "I support this" or "I am neutral on this". If you oppose 
: moving the draft forwards, or you have technical changes you want made, 
: please be explicit in your message. Feel free to start new threads if 
: you are objecting or suggesting changes. The authors will manage any 
: such discussions using the issue tracker.
: 
It's ok by me, but I'd still like it to address the issues I listed 
earlier in this email:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg06763.html

	Pekka

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:24:21 +0200

Thanks Pekka,

we will look at these comments for the next rev.

In the meantime, I would appreciate more comments (or just support) from 
the list - we are still in Last Call.

Best,
	Yaron

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:00:03 +0200

Hi everyone,

The 2-week LC period is up today. I'm afraid we got much less review 
than we would have liked, and further review/comments would be very welcome.

However since we've had good WG input on earlier iterations of this 
document, we are asking Sean, the security AD, to progress the draft.

Thanks,
     Yaron