Re: IPSEC SMIB

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>]

James P. Hughes says:
> On Aug 10,  5:42pm, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Subject: Re: IPSEC SMIB
> >
> > James P. Hughes says:
> > >> ENCRYPTION
> > >>
> > >>      ALGORTIHM
> 
> We must have a way of negotiate proprietary, experimental, or special purpose
>  algorithms which do not have the possibility of being misinterpreted by the
> responder.
> 
> Requiring IANA blessing of all algorithms is too harsh. Too inflexible.

People get IANA numbers every day for their network numbers, and no
one seems to think that is "harsh" and "inflexible". Most
organizations will never, ever play with proprietary transforms, let
alone thousands or tens of thousands of them, as granting "blocks" to
organizations would imply. I see no reason whatsoever to produce a
mechanism to actively encourage proprietary transforms, especially
since they are detrimental to the cause of open networking. If you
want a number assigned, you'll get one from IANA, which does not take
any appreciable time to assign things like this, and that will be
that. Unless you can code up new transforms at a rate of dozens a day,
you will never notice the time it takes to get a number from IANA.

Perry

---

References:

• Re: IPSEC SMIB
• From: hughes@hughes.network.com (James P. Hughes)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: IPSEC SMIB
• Next by Date: Re: IPSEC SMIB
• Prev by thread: Re: IPSEC SMIB
• Next by thread: Re: IPSEC SMIB
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread