Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Re: your mail

From: "David A. McGrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:46:37 -0500

Ted, Bard,

please accept this terse summary as the CFRG consensus.  Ran and I have 
heard it echoed both on and off of the list, without any significant 
contention.

Best regards,

David

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:18 AM, canetti wrote:
>
> I concur.
>
> Ran
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, David A. McGrew wrote:
>
>> Here is my personal $0.02: the change is well motivated, the solution
>> is good (it requires storing two extra keys, which seems not to be a
>> big deal), and if the spec can be rev'ed in the next couple of weeks, 
>> I
>> vote to do it.

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

---

From: Alex Alten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:45:10 -0800

David,

I've been too busy be real-time active on this thread.  But I concur 
also.  It's always
a good conservative choice to separate the key spaces from one another. 
Especially
since in this case the memory size hit is small and the software key 
management
complexity doesn't seem to be too much.

- Alex

At 10:46 AM 3/1/2004 -0500, David A. McGrew wrote:
>>>big deal), and if the spec can be rev'ed in the next couple of weeks, I
>>>vote to do it.
>
>

--

Alex Alten
[email-masked]
925-425-9601

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800

Nearly two weeks ago, David A. McGrew said:

>CFRGers,
>
>is there anyone with another viewpoint about Hugo's proposed 
>changes?  If not, we will go ahead and report this back to the IPsec 
>WG.

Did that report (with specific changes) actually get sent to the 
IPsec WG? If not, could the CFRG do that soon? The IKEv2 document is 
stalled waiting for this.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "David A. McGrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 15:03:23 -0800

Hi Paul,

On Mar 7, 2004, at 12:07 PM, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:

>> is there anyone with another viewpoint about Hugo's proposed changes? 
>>  If not, we will go ahead and report this back to the IPsec WG.
>
> Did that report (with specific changes) actually get sent to the IPsec 
> WG? If not, could the CFRG do that soon? The IKEv2 document is stalled 
> waiting for this.
>

it was sent out on May 1,  I hope that it made it to the ipsec list, 
though I don't subscribe to that one so I'm not sure.  I've copied it 
below:

<report>
Ted, Bard,

Best regards,

David

>> big deal), and if the spec can be rev'ed in the next couple of weeks, 
</report>

It is modest for a 'report' - I meant that word as a verb and not a 
noun, which perhaps caused some confusion.

David