Subject: [saag] BTNS report

From: "Laganier, Julien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:23:06 -0800

RFC 5660 - IPsec Channels: Connection Latching was recently published as a proposed standard.

The last unfinished deliverable left for the working group is the API for applications to use BTNS IPsec channels. It's not clear if the working group has sufficient energy to progress that work.

--julien, BTNS co-chair

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:43:29 -0500

>>>>> "Julien" == Julien Laganier <Laganier> writes:
    Julien> The last unfinished deliverable left for the working group
    Julien> is the API for applications to use BTNS IPsec channels. It's
    Julien> not clear if the working group has sufficient energy to
    Julien> progress that work.

As an author, let me state that we have received very little feedback.
We have received some feedback, but it was not terribly useful.  

As an author, I do not feel the document should progress until someone
who is implementing has really sat down and worked on it. Unfortunately,
I am not in a position to implement.

I propose to close BTNS, sadly.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:15 -0600

> We have received some feedback, but it was not terribly useful.  

We got enough help to complete two RFCs specifying protocols (BTNS core,
and connection latching).  I'm very grateful for that help.  It wasn't
copious though, and I'm afraid that APIs will get less attention still.

> I am not in a position to implement.

The same goes for me.  I think IPsec API standardization will have to
wait until there are implementations.  I'd rather both happen more or
less concurrently, because I think implementors will need some guidance,
but at least RFC5560 provides enough of an [very] abstract API that I
think things will turn out OK.

> I propose to close BTNS, sadly.

I agree, also sadly.  API documents can proceed as individual
submissions if authors have the energy for it, or as work items for
whatever IPsec WG successor is open that will change its charter to
cover them (but more interest will have to be a prerequisite).

Nico
--

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:57:51 -0800

Nicolas Williams wrote:
>...

Couldn't they also be AD-sponsored in SAAG?

I.e., we don't need to worry about a WG home for this work, and waiting
for implementation experience seems prudent anyway.

Joe

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:48:00 -0600

> Couldn't they also be AD-sponsored in SAAG?

Same thing.

> for implementation experience seems prudent anyway.

No, we don't, not yet anyways.