[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (IPng) Re: the silly bit
> From email@example.com Wed Mar 1 14:11:59 1995
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
> Subject: (IPng) Re: the silly bit
> This thread was not on IPng, and I firmly object to you bothering them
> with it. I, for one, will not be replying to this thread on any list in
> the future.
Since Bill will not be responding to this thread, allow me to explain to
others why I sent this to the IPng list. Anyone who has read both the I-Ds
submitted by Ran to IPng and the I-Ds written by Bill and Perry for IPsec will
note the high degree of similarity. Both specify SAIDs in a way that prevents
in-band signalling of keying material. This issue (and many others) are
common to both efforts. While I believe IPv6 need not follow the direction
being set by IPsec, including both communities in a discussion of common
issues, I think, is prudent. It widens the base of expertise, allowing
more insight to be gained by the participants.
While I can get as irritated as anyone about certain issues, I think it
is best to attempt to remain objective and courteous in email exchanges,
rather than using them as a blunt instrument. If I have bothered anyone
other than Bill, Perry or Ran by posting my discussions of the in-band
signalling issues to both the ipsec and ipng mailing lists, please let
me know. I am not trying to irritate people.