RE: Deleting ipSecPolicyTimePeriod related classes from IPsec PIB
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:43:35 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipsp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503C79EA6@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
Thanks for pinging/reminding me. It seems that I last reviewed revision 9 ad that I should take a look at rev 10. Will put it on my todo list. Not sure I can get to it before the end of IETF61. Actaully I doubt I will be able to do so before Nov 15 or so. Pls ping me again around that time if I have not answered. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 19:33 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Deleting ipSecPolicyTimePeriod related classes from IPsec PIB > > > Hi Bert, > > In March, we received your comments on IPsec PIB and made > modifications accordingly. The only remaining issue is about > the ipSecPolicyTimePeriod classes. You and I discussed two > solutions and both seemed to have some drawback: > > Solution #1. Put the ipSecPolicyTImePeriod classes into a > separate module within the IPsec PIB document. The drawback > is that since the title of the draft is IPsec PIB, it should > not contain a separate module that is not IPsec related. > People will probably not look into this draft to find time > related PIB classes > > Solution #2. Put the ipSecPolicyTime Period classes into a > separate module in a separate IETF draft. The drawback is > that it seems to me that IETF does not want to entertain > another PIB draft. > > At the end of our April e-mail discussions, you were going to > check if the TimePeriod classes are the only ones that should > be separate from the IPsec PIB. I am now proposing another > simpler solution as follows. > > If, after checking the document, you also think that the > TimePeriod classes are the only ones that are not IPsec > specific, what about we delete the ipSecPolicyTimePeriod > classes from the IPsec PIB so that we can move on? > > If on the other hand, you think that there are other stuff > that are not IPsec specific, please let use know. Thanks. > > Best regards > Man Li > >