[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: IPSEC at Dec IETF
James P. Hughes says:
> My opinion is that this working group has 2 responsibilities. That is,
> to implement something soon, and that must be IPv4 based. The next step
> is to implement an IPv6 version. Now, these 2 versions may be very
> similar, but they are not necessary to be 100% the same.
"The Group" isn't going to implement anything. "The Group" exists to
discuss the protocol itself. In the IETF process, implementations are
produced to allow the working groups to decide if they like a
particular protocol.
People working on actual code are, of course, out
there. Implementations are already in the works on both the IPv4 and
IPv6 sides. I can speak personally only of one v4 implementation based
on the swIPe code that should be available Real Soon Now.
> In any case, the IPv4 version is time critical because, as we have all
> been told, the internet is dire need of security -now-.
The bit patterns were all decided on and agreed upon at the last
meeting. At this point we really are on the stage of discussing key
management and the arguments are mostly about what document to use and
other final polishing up. A few bits may move around but not many.
I must take responsibility for the fact that we aren't already done
with the document; my unreasonable delays in finishing my rough draft
produced the current uncertainty. However, I think that at this point
everyone agrees that what we are going to be left with is virtually
indistinguishable from Ran's drafts and whats left are some minor
points of contention and what document to use for the standards
document qua standards document.
Perry
References: