Re: Traffic Selector extension

> From: RJ Atkinson <rja <at> extremenetworks.com>

> (Aside: I've never grasped why the list migrated.  Craig Metz made
> it quite clear that he was happy to continue to have the list at the
> original address if folks found that useful.  So far as I know,
> that remains his position.

Establishing a new list was a bit hastily done, I agree. But, the old
list was not working (and still isn't). I believe some effort or
queries were made, but nothing happened in few weeks, so discussion
started here instead.

> Maybe I misunderstood your meaning; your note sounded like you
> were talking about a local extension rather than an initial proposal
> that was open to discussion and (hypothetically, at least) change
> by others.  The words that led me to that (perhaps erroneous)
> understanding were these (particularly the emphasis on your
> lack of time to discuss here before implementation):
> 
>      "Well, I have to implement *something* fast. I need the
>      traffic selector extension and thus, I'm now adding the
>      attached definition to my implementation."

Of course, I also have to implement something. Otherwise I wouldn't be
discussing about it here. I'm very "satisfied customer" of the
original, *unmodified* (= without any private extensions) PFKEY RFC,
and exactly because of that, and respect for the original authors, is
the reason for this discusion. I want to have the good RFC
improved. Otherwise, I could always just gone and made my own changes