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

Re: Expired swIPe


Steve Kent says:
> 	No, Perry, I don't know one way or the other.  But I'm sure
> you know that the development of open standards is more than a
> popularity contest, measured in terms of installed base or variety of
> supported hardware platforms.  Otherwise, we would have declared IPX
> and DOS standards a long time ago.

My point is not that swIPe is popular -- in fact, at the moment, its
barely used because key management isn't in place. However, absent
another serious proposal being made, those of us who need such a
protocol for our day to day work are faced with either waiting for a
theoretically possible other protocol to show up or taking up swIPe as
a serious candidate.  That said, its entirely possible that swIPe
needs to have modifications made to it, or that it's flawed -- but
discussing that is what the IETF process is for.

I'm not mocking anyone here. I am being quite serious. I have no
intellectual stake in any particular scheme -- I merely have a stake
in seeing something, anything reasonable, deployed. I'm willing to
look at realistic alternatives. I define realistic as "implemented and
available in a public implementation very soon so deployment can occur
in the near future." If anyone has anything else that meets this
criterion, please speak up. The IPSEC group has been dormant for too
long. Its time to see some real work done.


Perry