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

Re: IPSEC SMIB

To: "James P. Hughes" <hughes@hughes.network.com>
Subject: Re: IPSEC SMIB
From: Ran Atkinson <atkinson@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:03:07 -0500
Cc: ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: hughes@hughes.network.com (James P. Hughes) "Re: IPSEC SMIB" (Aug 11, 14:27)
References: <9408111645.AA08820@ next85.darpa.mil > <9408111427.ZM5040@hughes.network.com>
Reply-To: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Sender: atkinson@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil


Jim,

  You are worrying about a non-existent problem.  Everyone is telling you
this.  Please listen to our words.  This is not a problem.  IANA
registration has worked well for over a decade.  I am aware of
ZERO problems during this time period.

  IMHO, it is NOT appropriate for an IETF standards-track protocol
spec to contain any kind of "policy".  Protocol specifications should
specify protocols.  Period.  The current wording requiring registration
with IANA is completely correct and completely consistent with other
existing IETF specifications.  See the MIME documentation requiring
registration of character sets for another worked example.

  Please lets concentrate on specifying the protocol.

Thanks very much,

Ran
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil

References:

Re: IPSEC SMIB

From: "Michael St. Johns" <stjohns@ARPA.MIL>

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