RE: iSCSI: Last Call process

[Black_David@emc.com]

> And if the AD/IESG had said that to me, I'd have asked "Do we have proof
> that DH-CHAP would not have any IP issues"?

We don't have proof that anything in this WG or any IETF WG is
free of IP issues, but DH-CHAP is in pretty good shape.  DH has
no known IP issues, CHAP has no known IP issues, and very little
else is being invented.  One can never be sure that anything is
free of IP issues, as patents can always pop up from nowhere.

> And "Do you really want the IPS WG to work on a security-related draft?"

You might want to look at draft-ietf-ips-security-11.txt before asking
that question ;-).  The general answer to "Do you really want the IPS
WG to work on security issues in its protocols" is along the lines of
"What part of the word 'YES' have we failed to make clear?".

> Even if we decided DH-CHAP looks good, it still would require a review
> process that is longer than the timeframe for iSCSI last call...

That remains to be seen.  As David Jablon said, DH-CHAP is "a combination
of old tried-and-true methods" (I left out "simple" to avoid an 0.05 fine
:-)).  I still don't have a -12 version of the iSCSI draft on which I
can start a WG last call of any form (either real or mock), and it's
rather unlikely that iSCSI will make it through WG Last Call on the
first try, requiring a draft revision and another WG Last Call.  That
sounds like it's going to take the "few weeks" I indicated as the time
frame for a decision on DH-CHAP.  OTOH, if you want to spend the next
few weeks debating process issues, all of this will take much longer ...

--David