Subject: Finishing PIC

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:02:49 -0800

Thanks to all the people who participated in the post-IETF-last-call 
discussion. Based on the messages from the list and the couple of 
off-list messages I got:

- Yaron and Hugo should revise the protocol to include the anti-DOS 
extra round trip.

- There is an open question about TCP or UDP, but no consensus on 
what we should do. We should thus stay with UDP, but I will bring 
this issue to the attention of the IESG.

Yaron and Hugo: please update the document as soon as possible, and 
certainly before the draft cutoff date. We should informally look at 
it in the WG after you do, and then I'll pass it on to the IESG 
noting that changes were made based on the IETF last call. Further, 
please remember that you were going to make some explanatory changes 
based on the messages between William Dixon and Yaron.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:16:18 -0800

> - Yaron and Hugo should revise the protocol to include the anti-DOS

If the protocol is being modified, doesn't that send it back to WG Last
Call?

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:39:39 -0800

>If the protocol is being modified, doesn't that send it back to WG Last

I don't think so. Where does it say that?

Further, note that my message also said:

>  > We should informally look at
>  > noting that changes were made based on the IETF last call.

Did you want something more than that?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 21:39:38 -0800

> I don't think so. Where does it say that?

Touchy, touchy! :-)  I was just asking...

> Did you want something more than that?

Well, I would think that if substantive technical changes have been made to
the document then at least another trip through IETF Last Call would be in
order.  After all, in theory at least this protocol will be deployed on
millions of workstations around the world...

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:02:15 -0800

At 9:39 PM -0800 11/8/01, Glen Zorn wrote:
>order.

That is a decision for the ADs, not for the WG chairs. As I said, I 
will point out the protocol change when I send it on to the ADs, and 
they can decide whether or not that warrants another IETF last call.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 11:53:24 -0800

Paul Hoffman / VPNC [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> That is a decision for the ADs, not for the WG chairs.

Note that I said "at least another trip through IETF Last Call"; I would
actually expect that you would want another WG Last Call, but that appears
not to be the case.  This, of course, begs the question, "What's the
hurry?".  I can't imagine that the same vendors which have spent so much
time and money "differentiating" their products by creating pair-wise
mtually incompatible versions of xauth & mode config (except for the
"bake-off versions", which actually interoperate -- sometimes) are frothing
at the mouth to embrace a new "standard".  Is everybody just too tired to go
on, or what?

> As I said, I