[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some comments on IPSEC proposals
Hilarie Orman writes:
> > It appears that by failing to be as vicious as possible ...
>
> No, the wolverine approach to technical consensus has been highly
> unprofitable in this group. A revival may well be the end of it.
>
> Almost everyone who has read the drafts has been confused by many of
> the points that Ron and Phil have raised. I, too, would like to see
> almost all of these things clarified.
I've got no problems with clarifying the language. Language can almost
always stand to be improved. I have problems, however, with Phil
Rogaway's characterization of difficulties in wording as fatal flaws
in the architecture, which they obviously are not. I also see a clear
distinction between a minor but very useful techincal change like
Hugo's and Phil's desire to interpose another layer of indirection
purely for the sake of having "generic" transforms.
> I'd be willing to take another editorial pass over the arch and mode
> docs, perhaps less tentative this time, now that I've some
> implementation experience.
The documents could use lots of little wording changes. However, I
believe we both agree that...
> I don't think that the documents should be held up if there is an
> obvious and ongoing good faith effort to address the concerns.
In any case, we are discussing going to the lowest of the three stages
of standardization. There is plenty of opportunity even for
significant technical improvements, let alone wording changes, before
the thing becomes a standard. We need a lot more implementation
experience before we can really complete that portion of the work.
Perry