Re: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting

I and the other ADs have certainly heard that there's a lot of energy  
and interest in this problem, but given that none of the major drafts  
have been updated since Montreal, it does not seem that that the work  
is in a sufficiently coordinated state to construct an agenda for a  
good BoF in San Diego. This is partly my fault for just not having  
time to drive the list discussion the way I should have, but that  
doesn't make us any closer to being ready.

Over the next few months I hope that Jon, Russ, Dan and I along with  
the draft authors can drive some better on-list discussion with the  
intention to have a BoF on this topic in Prague.

On Sep 20, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Fries, Steffen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I strongly agree. I don't think we will have just one solution for key
> management but reducing the options would better ensure  
> interoperability
> between different implementations.
>
> I think the BoF at the last IETF brought some light into the main
> requirements people have for key management for SRTP. Coping with  
> those
> would be the first step and I think the BoF would be good place to
> discuss the schemes.
>
> Regards
>         Steffen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Dan_York@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:28 PM
> > To: Cullen Jennings; IETF-RTPSEC
> > Subject: Re: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting
> >
> >
> > Cullen,
> >
> > I guess the question is - are we any closer to a smaller set
> > of solutions for key exchange?
> >
> > At the last BOF we had a good discussion of requirements. I
> > thought I understood that the next step would be for the
> > authors of the various proposals to go back and take a look
> > at their own proposals and whether those proposals should be
> > altered/merged/etc in light of the proposed requirements.
> >
> > Have we seen any such revisions? I don't recall seeing any on
> > this list.
> >
> > Do we need a face-to-face meeting to hammer away at what is
> > next?  It might be an effective way to make some progress.  I
> > realize the odds of us seeing *one* solution are basically
> > zero, but dropping it down from 11 or 13 solutions would
> > definitely be desirable.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > Dan
> > --
> > Dan York, CISSP
> > Dir of IP Technology, Office of the CTO
> > Mitel Corp.     http://www.mitel.com
> > dan_york@xxxxxxxxx +1-613-592-2122
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Cullen Jennings [fluffy@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 09/19/2006 11:04 AM
> > To: IETF-RTPSEC <ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > I have not received any requests for BOF - I was sitting on
> > the fence about if we needed one or not but certainly don't
> > want to have one if it is not going to be a productive
> > conversation. Anyways, just wanted to give the list a heads
> > up that I did not get any requests and unless I get one
> > Really Really soon (like late today), I don't think we will
> > be having a BOF at next meeting.