[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Working group requirements
On IPsec, you wrote:
> I do not agree that Photuris meets the working group requirements.
> For example, section 1.4 of RFC 1825 is nigh impossible to acomodate [sic]
> for an interoperable implementation based on the Photuris draft and the
> extentions [sic] draft. The entire draft(s) has become unwieldy.
I think it would be extremely useful for you to elaborate on precisely _how_
the Security Associations section of RFC 1825 is "nigh impossible" to
accommodate for an interoperable implementation based on the drafts. The WG
seems to be spending days upon days effectively 'voting' on whether or not
Photuris meets the WG requirements. At this stage of the game, this strikes
me as a bit silly. IMHO everyone (including the chairs) should be getting
down to brass tacks, so the remaining technical objections can be resolved
one way or another.
-Lewis
Follow-Ups: