[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv4 Security

On Apr 8, 14:35, Jim Zmuda wrote:

[ much stuff deleted ]

* basing formats on NLSP (a rancorous issue for debate!)

  I think there are a fair number of us who have real problems with
ISO OSI syntax and format conventions.  One of the major advantages of
the Internet suite has been its streamlined syntax.  Several of the
IP:TNG proposals (e.g. SIP, PIP) have been streamlining things even
more than IPv4.  Note that I distinguish "syntax/format" from
"mechanism".  

  I would also assert that before we could even decide on NLSP
mechanisms, we would need someone to write a "plain English" version
of the NLSP specification and discuss it based on that readable
document.  NLSP is not at all readable even to people who understand
SP3 fairly well.

* works with CLNP, as well as IP

  This is most certainly NOT a requirement for me.  My GOSIP
transition plan is from IPv4 to IP:TNG only.  I think this is unduly
restrictive and it isn't clear to me that there was consensus that
this was a requirement.  It is clear that ISO will be using NLSP
and the IETF should avoid trying to compete with ISO on protocols
owned by ISO.

  I think that there was consensus that the IPSP needed to be scalable
such that it would work reasonably well over low bandwith links (e.g.
dialup IP) all the way through higher bandwidths such as Gigabit
networks currently in research and development (e.g. ATM at OC-48).

  I would very much like to see a full spec for swIPe made available
as an Internet Draft or by some other similar mechanism.  

  I would like to see consideration of SDNS KMP for the basis of
key management protocol development.  Is there an electronic copy
of the KMP spec that could be made available somewhere ?

Regards,

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Follow-Ups: References: