[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG last call for IPv4 AH and ESP
Ashar Aziz says:
> >From: "marcus (m.d.) leech" <mleech@bnr.ca>
> >> At the neither the Toronto, nor the
> > San Jose meetings, did this issue come up.
>
> Since I was at both meetings, and since I did present the SKIP
> key-management protocol which uses in-band signalled keys at both
> meetings, and since I did give working demos of this kind of
> key-management at both meetings, I can safely say that this
> is not true.
It was mentioned in Toronto that your model at the time wasn't
entirely compatible with what had been discussed for IPv4. As I
recall, you stated that you felt you could easily get things to work
and had no problems with what we'd said. I must admit to not having
examined the SKIP drafts since then -- you will note that I haven't
been an active participant in the key management discussions lately
because I've been working too much on IPSP implementation. I had
assumed after you refered to your current formats as being "close to
IPSP" at San Jose that your problems had been resolved.
> What is true is that at both meetings there was no IPv4 SP draft,
> so one could not comment on a draft that did not exist.
The drafts have been out for a couple of months now, though. The model
was discussed in detail at the meetings you attended. I distinctly
remember explaining in Toronto that the model at that time was
"receiver selects arbitrary SAID during negotation".
I'm not saying that your concern isn't legitimate, but you should have
read them a bit earlier on. You aren't the quiet type -- you have
usually stated quite loudly when you had trouble with something -- and
I, for one, had been operating under the assumption that there was no
problem extant with the model.
My off-the-cuff reaction would be to agree with Ran and Marcus on this
subject. However, I must admit that I don't know enough about the
current state of SKIP to render a reasonable judgement. I promise to
go over the latest draft again (possibly even tonight) and get back on
this.
Perry
References: