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

Re: IPv4 Security

To: zmuda@mls1.hac.com
Subject: Re: IPv4 Security
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 16:09:02 -0400
Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Cc: atkinson@tengwar.itd.nrl.navy.mil, ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Jim Zmuda's message of Tue, 20 Apr 93 10:42:13 PDT,<9304201742.AA24395@mls1.HAC.COM>
Phone: (617) 253-8091

   Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 10:42:13 PDT
   From: zmuda@mls1.hac.com (Jim Zmuda)

   First, the proper focus for our discussion is requirements.  And the
   requirement I was placing on the table for discussion was simply: "Is
   it worth rolling our own format, or can the NLSP format work for IPSP
   (without objectionable performance penalty, of course)?"  

My feeling is that the NLSP format should _not_ be considered a
requirement.  If it meets the desired requirements and is otherwise
technically better than the other formats, then fine.  But at this
stage, it doesn't seem apropriate to make NLSP a requirement --- as you
said, the proper focus for our discussion is requirements, and there
does not seem to be a technical justification for such a requirement at
this point in time.

						- Ted

References:

Re: IPv4 Security

From: zmuda@mls1.hac.com (Jim Zmuda)

Prev by Date: IPSP requirements
Next by Date: Re: IPSP requirements
Prev by thread: Re: IPv4 Security
Next by thread: Re: IPv4 Security
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread