[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (IPng) Proposed message on perfect forward security
Perry,
bound@zk3.dec.com says:
> I will also add that ESP requires DES. Could we select an encryption
> algorithm that has no export restrictions any where in the world.
>I oppose the evisceration of critical internet technologies to appease
>the short-sighted paranoiacs working for some governments. (Did you
>know that Pakistan just banned the use of cellphones because their
>secret police find they are too much of a pain to trace?)
I am not a paranoiac and object to your tone again. It was a question
dude. Lighten up. Ran answered it just fine.
>I say that we simply behave like engineers and design the best system
>we can, and leave it to the governments to cripple their own countries
>by making it impossible for their citizenry to join the internet, or
>by leaving their citizens open to massive fraud and invasion of
>privacy. I will not lend my support to a consensus for anything less
>than the best system I know how to design, and I suspect that others
>feel the same way.
I see no consensus that you keep saying with phrases like "I suspect
that others feel the same way". I do see one hand clapping.
Nothing you can say will convince me of not wanting the option of
in-band keying in the spec. Because I believe it should be a technology
option I as an engineer may build in my products, for the explicit reasons
Dan has described consistently.
In addition I agree with Dan that the present wording that in-band is not
recommended is wrong.
I with Dan and others will object at last call to that wording in the
document if it is to go to proposed standards before Danvers MA. Done!,
and as far as I am concerned there is no consensus to support your views
technically on any of the security subjects discussed in this rather
extensive mail exchange. You have a view and others have a different
view. Your not winning the debate your just sending a lot of mail.
/jim
Follow-Ups: