Re: Reviews requested

A little over a month ago, I said:

At 4:34 PM -0800 3/29/04, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>So, it's getting towards our self-appointed deadline of the end of 
>March, and we haven't seen any significant reviews of any of the 
>three documents. Maybe it's post-Seoul syndrome or something, but we 
>really do want to keep to our schedule.
>
>Please review the first three documents listed at 
><http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-mobike/>.
>
>- Do the requirements in the requirements document make sense? Are 
>any unneeded? Are any additional ones needed?
>
>- Do the protocol proposals make sense? Does either protocol 
>proposal have significant benefits over the other?
>
>- It wouldn't hurt to do another review of the IKEv2 document, 
>seeing as it just went into IETF last call today.
>
>Send comments to the mailing list, hopefully with a good Subject: 
>line. Thanks!

Not much in the way of reviewing has happened, but the list is 
actively discussing some important topics that will affect all the 
documents. We have now completely blown our deadlines, but maybe 
that's OK.

Discussion on topics related to using IKE in mobility are of course 
still welcome. Reviews on the three documents are still much 
appreciated. Maybe it's time to focus more?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium