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

Re: WG last call for IPv4 AH and ESP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> I agree with this.  I'd like to make sure that in-band keys are possible.
> 
> Derrell
> 
> 
I'd like to put in my two-cents worth for avoiding further complication
  in the existing drafts.

At the neither the Toronto, nor the
  San Jose meetings, did this issue come up.  I have been under the
  assumption that there was an implicit understanding that a key-management
  protocol would eventually emerge, and that the "encapsulation" drafts
  should proceed with that assumption.  I think that we would be doing
  a great dis-service to an already very-late process to introduce
  further complications like in-band key change to a pair of proposals
  that are seeming to solidify very rapidly.

The beauty of the existing drafts (AH and ESP) is that they can operate
  in either a manual or automatically-managed key management environment.
  This is, in my opinion, a great step forward.  I'm getting frustrated
  watching this process get derailed, frequently, by what to the casual
  observer seems like creeping featurism...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQBVAwUBL0qNCKp9EtiCAjydAQF9ZAIAg9hab+1AAt5C08U2ycntvTPZ4kSiQZJO
J3fbUNpAQt6eQhWJQvpIgesLT+xVl7GYHJ2n8vdYYhipjcd4OVwm/g==
=EcgT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Marcus Leech        |Any opinions expressed are mine.         |+1 613 763 9145
VE3MDL              | and not those of my employer            |+1 613 567 5484
mleech@bnr.ca       |                                         |
References: