I tried this in my secdir review, for instance suggesting that
perhaps PANA-IPsec should be limited to IKEv2 and 4301 and people had
different opinions ranging from 'not sure about forcing IKEv2 on
PANA' to 'there wouldn't be any differentiator to PANA' (they are not
quotes; I am paraphrasing), and so really didn't find a consensus to
make any recommendations.
In the end though, I think perhaps publishing PANA documents after
the necessary clean-up as experimental and informational RFCs is the
right way to go about it. There is a long of line of WGs where this
has happened and some of those documents have eventually come back
into standards track.
best regards,
Lakshminath
At 02:30 PM 5/26/2006, Jari Arkko wrote:
Anyway, I agree with Dave Crocker that the bar should be
higher for using "there's another solution" argument in last
call discussion of chartered work than in, say, a BOF
discussion. Perhaps we should focus more on whether
the function itself is something that we agree on, and
what we can do to fix/scope/help PANA.
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf