[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions
Marcus,
> All that's happening here is that IETF is showing it has
>slowly evolved to the point where it, like other standards bodies,
>has become useless and entrenched, hopelessly fragmented by the
>desire for representation in advance of technology and vendor
>interest instead of improving the state of the art.
Its not as it appears on this mail really. At all the meetings at least
for IPv6 we have done real technical work and I can state for a fact
the work being implemented by a few of us right now for IPv6 is good and
evolved and will not get bogged down in politics. Seucurity has some
legal issues as we build the words. And in IPv6 we are improving the
state of the art and have already several times broken vendor interest
for the sake of correct technology evolution.
There are a lot of people coming to the IETF now though which I think is
slowing down consensus. That could be an issue.
> It's too bad IETF didn't manage to learn from the PEM
>versus PGP debacle -- if the vendors have their way, it'll be
>the same thing all over again.
Wasn't one of the lessons mandating PEM did not work?
> I think this kind of stuff is out of line and if you have a
>personal problem with someone on the list keep it personal rather than
>cluttering the airwaves.
I agree. Just wanted to make my position clear. Sorry to all.
/jim