Subject: Re: Next Step

From: Avram Shacham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:06:45 -0800

At 12:04 PM 2/2/98 -0500, Naganand Doraswamy wrote:
>We are pretty close to getting the architecture draft through IESG. As we
>discussed earlier, all the algorithm documents should become informational
>RFC. I would like these forwarded to the IESG before the LA IETF. Right now
>we have two drafts-
>
>1. draft-ietf-ippcp-lzs-02.txt

As Bob Monsour stated, this document is not updated.

>2. draft-ietf-ippcp-deflate-01.txt
>
>Are there any other comments on this? If not, I would like to submit these
>for last calls to be published as Informational RFC's. 
>
>We also need to decide if there is any need to meet at LA. I do not think
>we have any additional work at this point. If anybody has work item that
>they feel requires a meeting at LA please let me know. I will have to
>request for a slot. If I do not hear from anybody, I will assume there is
>no need to meet at LA.

I agree that the only reason to meet is to celebrate the fact that the WG
met all the objectives, goals and milestones (!), as defined in its charter.

>We need to push for interoperability at the next IPsec workshop and I guess
>this is already happenning. 

The best way to present implementations is to take part in the bake-offs. 

Could the implementors, who plan to attend the 3-98 IPSec/IPComp bake-off,
describe the capabilities of their implementations?  For example:
compression algorithm(s) supported, negotiation mechanisms, and any other
detail that can make the interoperability test a success.

avram

---

From: Daniel Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:09:16 -0800

Just to keep the record straight. The 3/98 meeting is an IPSec bake-off.
Vendors may want to test other protocols in conjunction with IPSec (L2TP 
and IPComp come immediately to mind) but that should be a sidebar to the
main activity. We're baking IPSec and ISAKMP/Oakley. If you have frosting 
or sprinkles to add on top that's great.

  Dan.