[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: > draft spec and pilot i
Reply to: RE>> draft spec and pilot im
Ran,
You have brought up some important organizational points about our IPSEC
work that we need to solve.
>Date: 19 Sep 93 13:56:35 -0400
>From: Ran Atkinson <atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>
>
> There is no consensus on what the IP Security Protocol should look
>like. There are at least 3 serious contenders. I am told that part
>of the US DoD is funding development of IP/NLSP implementations. A
>trio of researchers in the private sector have already developed a
>prototype called "swIPe". The SP3 security protocol is commercially
>available now (as in the US Navy uses SP3 daily to protect sensitive
>traffic).
I was not able to attend the last meeting in Amsterdam, but I heard that
significant progress was made on the resolving some of the outstanding IPSP
issues. However, I have not seen any minutes yet from this meeting. It is
hard to develop a consensus when we do not record our work.
> There are no known Internet Drafts of any sort relating to the IP
>Security work, at least to my knowledge/recollection. This is clearly
>a serious standards process problem in this working group because lack
>of I-Ds (and the de facto reliance on sundry NIST and ISO specs) makes
>the process less open to peer review on the Internet and is not normal
>IETF procedure.
>
>Ran
I agree that the lack of Internet Drafts pertaining to our work is a
problem. Having the various NIST and ISO specifications in paper form has
served as a useful starting point, but we should find a way to post these
references to this mailing list. Ran, would you like to type or scan them
into an ASCII format?
There will be an NLSP I-D soon that will hopefully will serve as fodder to
keep the group moving. I would also encourage the swIPe advocates to post
any work that they are pursuing.
The minutes are still a serious problem. I will attempt to track them down
and get something posted.
Paul