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

Re: Re[2]: key management

To: housley@spyrus.com (Housley, Russ)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: key management
From: uri@watson.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:46:14 -0500 (EST)
Cc: ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: <9411147874.AA787422556@spysouth.spyrus.com> from "Housley, Russ" at Dec 14, 94 08:29:16 am
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com

Housley, Russ says:
> My understanding was that the IP layer was selected so that the security
> could be slipped into the protocol stack with a lot of transparency.

Sure!

> > There are very good reasons that the IPng directorate made the
> > decision they did. I wouldn't discard the recommendation without
> > extremely serious thought.
> I have given this a lot of thought.  In fact, I have been involved in
> security protocol design efforts since 1986, and this issue comes up in
> each new effort.............
> I think that IPSP has many advantages, but in my opinion, it should not be
> used (or abused) to provide application-to-application security.

Couldn't agree more. Glad I'm not the only one holding this opinion.
--
Regards,
Uri         uri@watson.ibm.com      N2RIU
-----------
<Disclamer>

References:

Re[2]: key management

From: "Housley, Russ" <housley@spyrus.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Human I&A, IPsec, and their non-relationship
Next by Date: Re: key management
Prev by thread: Re: Re[2]: key management
Next by thread: Re: Re[2]: key management
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread