[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re IPngSP
Hi,
There is a *perception* in the IPng process that IPSEC
isn't making any progress. (Note that I don't share this perception.)
When combined with the strongly expressed requirements from
many of the external reviewers that IPng must be "secure" (*)
this has led one of the WGs (SIPP) to invent their own. (You should
note that SIPP is trying to eat everyone else's lunch too, with
new MAC convergence protocols, new variants of routing
protocols, DNS inventions, etc. :-)
I think IPSEC needs to state *formally* to the appropriate
directorates that the question of an NLSP belongs to IPSEC,
that IPSEC is prepared to provide it for whatever IPng actually
arrives, and that any work in the IPng Area that does more than
liase with IPSEC is out-of-order.
Certainly CATNIP has no difficulty with using the IPSEC NLSP.
(And TUBA will certainly use (an, one of, the?) ISO NLSP.)
Best Regards
Robert Ullmann
CATNIP chair (pro-tem, 29th IETF)
(*I presume that in this forum I don't need to discuss the vacuity
of the concept of asking that something by "secure" without
specifiying whether you mean authentication, access control,
confidentiality, non-deniability, etc ... and against what opfor ? :-)