[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
Allow both. Don't mandate the use of one over the other. In systems which are
in use today we use both methods, I would suspect each equally (at least from my
experience over the past 12 years in secure communications system design &
implementation.) Admittedly each has it's good and bad points, but we are all
in the process of trying to design a NEW protocol and this protocol, if it is to
be widely accepted, must be able to be implemented by everyone. Some customers
really are not concerned with the overhead, they just want a secure channel. It
really depends on the application.
Bottom line: Security has always had some overhead and it always will.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.S. "Skip" Harborth
Manager & Senior Engineer
Information Systems Security Engineering
Houston Associates, Incorporated
4601 North Fairfax Dr, Suite 1001
Arlington, Virginia 22203 USA
(703) 284-8732 812-5099 (fax)
INTERNET> sharborth@hai-net.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: (IPng) Proposed Standard or no?
From: ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM at internet
Date: 24-02-95 19:43
Folks,
I originally sent my email on in-band signalling of keying material to both
the IPSEC and IPv6 mailing lists, since the issues are identical to each.
Right now we have the following people who think in-band signalling should be
allowed :
IPSEC WG
--------
hugo@watson.ibm.com
rgm3@is.chrysler.com
nessett@eng.sun.com
markson@osmosys.incog.com
ashar@osmosys.incog.com
IPv6 WG
-------
bound@zk3.dec.com
markson@osmosys.incog.com
ashar@osmosys.incog.com
nessett@eng.sun.com
The people opposed to in-band signalling are :
IPSEC WG
--------
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
bsimpson@morningstar.com
perry@imsi.com
IPv6 WG
-------
atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
bsimpson@morningstar.com
perry@imsi.com
Admittedly, neither group enjoys a clear majority (in fact most people probably
aren't reading the email, due to the vituperation in many of the messages
from certain of the participants). However, I think there are enough people
who believe that in-band signalling should at least be *allowed* that the
I-Ds as they currently stand should not be advanced to Proposed Draft status.
Personally, I would like to hear from some of the others on these lists to
find out what they think. [The views of those listed above have been
thoroughly ventilated, I think].
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Mailing List FTP archive: ftp.parc.xerox.com:/pub/ipng
Unsubscribe: unsubscribe ipng (as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Follow-Ups: