[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SKIP: Interoperability proposal
Germano Caronni writes:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Hilarie Orman writes:
> > > The SKIP work seems as mainstream ipsec as anything else.
> > Its largely to completely incompatible. Given that, I'd say it isn't
> > IPSEC.
>
> Perry, I strongly disagree with you. skip-04 bases itself heavily on
> RFC1825, and is firmly coupled with both 1826 and 1827, making 1828
> and 1829 mandatory to implement. This looks quite like being in the
> line of IPSEC.
I have heard you and others say this sort of thing before. I can
disagree all day long with you, but it won't do any good. Suffice it
to say, I believe that the claim is specious. SKIP is "compatible" in
name only. A SKIP packet will not "work" with, say, an NRL IPSEC
implementation. It makes different assumptions about the whole world,
and assumes you have bought into the whole SKIP key management
mechanism.
I think that the fact that SKIP exists at all demonstrates that SKIP
isn't the same as IPSEC. If it was, then why would anyone bother
writing drafts about it, since it would be the same thing?
The fact remains that the direction we have selected is the IPSEC
documents, which are now standards track, and Photuris-like
mechanisms, of which Photuris is the one currently under greatest
study and development. SKIP is *not* the direction that the mainstream
standardization effort is going in.
Perry
Follow-Ups: