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

Re: >>RFC1108 vs SAID

To: Paul_Lambert@poncho.phx.sectel.mot.com (Paul Lambert)
Subject: Re: >>RFC1108 vs SAID
From: atkinson@tengwar.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Ran Atkinson)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 16:46:44 -0400
Cc: ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Paul_Lambert@poncho.phx.sectel.mot.com (Paul Lambert) "Re: >>RFC1108 vs SAID" (Apr 26, 13:21)
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <00112.2818675302.33691@poncho.phx.sectel.mot.com>

Paul,

  Your assertion is not correct.  

  Firstly, we don't have a formally approved charter from the IESG yet, 
to the best of my knowledge.

  Secondly, the draft text says we are to design and specify a security 
protocol for IPv4 with consideration to possible adaptation for IP:TNG.  
We do not currently have a charter to design a security protocol for 
any of the IP:TNG proposals.  We may and should consider the IP:TNG proposals, 
but we are NOT chartered to design any IP:TNG Security Protocol.  

Ran

P.S.
  I didn't start this line of discussion and wish it would drop with this
note.

Prev by Date: Re: >>RFC1108 vs SAID
Next by Date: No Subject
Prev by thread: Re: >>RFC1108 vs SAID
Next by thread: No Subject
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread