Hi Randy,
Sorry, this was my fault. I have a question into the secretariat to see if I can fix this as it was part of the ballot text. I was checking on the number of implementations and forgot to go back and update with the answer, none.
If I can add text, it will note that the working group reached consensus and that there are no implementations yet. That would be followed with the text from the shepherd report:
The WG discussion of the document was fairly good, with about average participation (which
for the IPsecME WG means "the chairs had to beg a bit for more participants, but we then got
them"). We also got a "TSVDIR-ish review" of the draft, which got good discussion on the
list. There was a reasonable amount of give-and-take, and the WG Last Call was uncontentious.
A significant point was brought up during IETF Last Call, and was added to the Security
Considerations.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi -
>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2014 3:04 PM
>To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
>Cc: ipsecme mailing list <ipsec@xxxxxxxx>, ipsecme chair <ipsecme-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Protocol Action: 'IKEv2 Fragmentation' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-10.txt)
...
>Document Quality
>
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
> Review, on what date was the request posted?
It would have been nice if the announcement had included
answers to these questions.
Randy
Best regards,
Kathleen