[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG last call for IPv4 AH and ESP
Paul,
While I am far from agreeing with everything that Bill Simpson writes,
even on the limited topic of ipsec, I think it would be a fine idea
to have a couple of complete documented proposals to debate. While
there are pros and cons of this, I think the positive aspects of the
development of each proposal sparking ideas and energy in both itself
and the other proposal and the posibilities for such things as deciding
on a final protocol mostly from column A with a few items from column
B outweigh the problems.
Donald
On 21 Feb 1995 Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com wrote:
> Date: 21 Feb 95 06:54:00 -0600
> From: Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com
> To: bsimpson@morningstar.com, ipsec@ans.net
> Subject: Re: WG last call for IPv4 AH and ESP
>
>
> >Things have quieted down on this list about AH and ESP, so I have to
> >assume we are ready to implement. I'm working on integrating Ran's IPv6
> >changes into the text. Are there any other issues still unresolved?
> >
> >Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
>
>
> There is no reason to have two IPv4 security protocols!
>
> There should only be one protocol (per San JOse discussions) that provides
> confidentiality, integrity (a.k.a. authentication), or confidentiality and
> authentication.
>
> The IPv6 Authentication only protocol already meets the proposed needs of IPv6.
>
>
> Paul
>
=====================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 1-508-287-4877(tel) dee@cybercash.com
318 Acton Street 1-508-371-7148(fax) dee@world.std.com
Carlisle, MA 01741 USA
References: