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

Re: IPSEC SMIB

On Aug 11, 12:44pm, Michael St. Johns wrote:
> Subject: Re: IPSEC SMIB
> James - you have to at least give a unique name so that people can
> match this stuff up..

Yes, I agree. Unique names (such as NSC-1 and NSC-2 or maybe STK-1 and STK-2)
would be more than sufficient.

>From Mr. Perry's very constructive reply:
> None in all likelyhood. The only way that would happen would be if the
> registration space was small -- but it is in fact likely to be vast,
> and the probability of being denied an assigned number is close to
> zero.

The words "likelyhood", "probability" and "close to zero" are difficult for me.
I agree that these terms may be correct, but their exact meaning escapes me.

I am trying to direct this entire line of discussion towards defining -exactly-
what the policy that vendors can expect to be used when the IANA determines if
a number -may- be registered. (For instance, must all numbers be approved by
the working group?)

A policy should be interpretable as being absolute. I am sure that the working
group will recommend to the IANA a policy it would like to see regarding the
allocation of assigned numbers which are applicable only to the standard that
they develop. I am sure the IANA would like to see as clear a policy as
possible so that they can meet the wishes of the working group.

The consensus I seem to be hearing, which I will attempt to state with the
minimum number of words is:

Designators for open or proprietary algorithms (for encryption, authentication,
compression and replay prevention) will be provided by the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) when requested.

Is this correct?

>From the original posting

>      ALGORTIHM
>           This is a structured, IANA-registered algorithm ID that
> also specifies the mode of use, e.g., DES-CBC or DES-EDE2-CBC, or
> DES-CFB-8.

scared me. The word "registered" is correct, it was the policy for registration
was left open.

Maybe this is the wrong document for the registration policy to be placed, but
this is the first time that a potential limit to algorithms have been discussed
on this (aptly named) exploader.

What -we- will have when this is all done is a set of words in a standard.

Email regarding the meaning of the words is useless folklore after the standard
is published. This is why I would like to have a more specific statements in
the document. This is also why I challenge the exact wording of the drafts so
closely.

jim
Follow-Ups: References: