RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision

[Black_David@emc.com]

With my WG chair hat firmly on, I have to say that Paul Koning
is mistaken in asserting the absence of WG rough consensus
for use of IPsec with iSCSI.  The rough consensus in question
is at least 6 months old having been established across 2
interim meetings plus the meeting in London, all of whose
minutes have been reported to the mailing list and all of
which have been accepted without significant objection on
the list.  Paul's objection to this consensus is noted, but
the consensus stands.

The two "MUST"s that Ofer proposed are not only appropriate,
but required - the IESG can be expected to return a document
that does not contain them to the WG in short order.

More on security is coming shortly, but this seemed important
enough to put in a message by itself.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Koning [mailto:ni1d@arrl.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:43 PM
> To: BIRAN@il.ibm.com
> Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: iSCSI: IPsec tunnel / transport mode decision
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is the sort of answer your question was looking
> for, but I don't want to let silence be taken for agreement, so...
> 
> I'm opposed to the presence of "MUST" in sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2
> for reasons stated in mail to this list a week or two ago.
> 
>     paul
>