[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPSEC SMIB
James - you have to at least give a unique name so that people can
match this stuff up..
> On Aug 10, 9:06pm, Stephen D Crocker wrote:
> > Subject: Re: IPSEC SMIB
> > Jim,
> >
> > The IANA is usually excellent about honoring requests for assignments
> > of numbers or identifiers. There's almost never a determination of
> > the merits of the use. This is entirely distinct from the creation of
> > standards.
> >
> > If this nonetheless turned out to be a burden, I can imagine it might
> > make sense to ask for the allocation of a set of identifiers for
> > private experimental use, e.g. EXPALG1, EXPALG2, etc., whose meanings
> > are to be known by the users and which might vary from implementation
> > to implementation. (I'm not sure what the accepted practice is on
> > this point though; after 25 years, most of the hare-brained ideas have
> > been proposed more than once, so there may be a standard answer to
> > this one too.)
>
> I agree that experimental stuff could use this, but proprietary algorithms that
> either do not want to be interoperable or are forced (for various reasons which
> I will not go into) to remain proprietary, may continue to use the experimental
> label. This would be a problem.
>
> The use of EXPALG1, EXPALG2, etc., may cause confusion -if- my interpretation
> of this field and some other vendor's interpretation of this field are
> different -and- these 2 units accidently come into contact.
>
> In the past, NSC has used the enterprise specific SNAP header to create
> protocol mappings that are of interest to us, but to no others. I cite the
> example of HYPERchannel over FDDI (I am showing my age here). There is no use
> in requesting a standard "ethertype" for this. There is no problem with this
> method because there will never be a problem with this field being
> misinterpreted.
>
> > In any case, until the IANA gives us cause to doubt its efficacy, this
> > is a red herring.
>
> Maybe I am wrong.
>
> I need 2 mapping right now for proprietary algorithms. I can disclose the
> mappings but can not disclose the algorithms being used.
>
> Will I have a problem getting these mappings?
>
> jim
>
References: