[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Working group requirements

On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Lewis McCarthy wrote:

> 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.

I strenuously agree with this objection.  I want to see the list of 
reasons why advancing Photuris is unacceptable.  I would like to see 
line-by-line references, as many members of this working group have done 
in the past.  I think that the amount of time we are spending on this is 
silly.

I say this because there are many members of this group more adept at 
addressing the issues than myself.  My impression is that Photuris is 
ready to advance.  If others disagree, then you should make your 
objections known.  If you do not, then I will pat myself on the back for 
being such a smart guy and then press for Photuris' advancement.

However, in the last 72 hours the only objection has been an 
un-referenced opinion that implementation of the RFC1825 Security 
Association requirements would be impossible (an objection that I do not 
understand after having re-read RFC1825 and the draft Photuris spec.)  
This leads me to believe that there are no members of the group who bear 
serious objections to Photuris' advancement.  I think that the Chairs 
should seriously consider taking appropriate steps to insure that we can 
meet the already-stretched timeframe for getting something (Photuris 
and/or others) out the door.


Todd Lewis
todd@wooster.org

P.s.,
(In reference to carrel@cisco.com)
	Reflecting over the development cycle through which Photuris has 
gone, I am of the opinion that its level of complexity is the result of 
its absolute demand for integrity.  If others could come up with a 
key-management method of less complexity which achieves equivalent 
results, then I wish that they had done so in a timely manner.  I 
personally think that any protocol "nigh" able to "accomodate section 1.4 of 
RFC1825" will be just as "unwieldy" as Photuris, and I wish that people 
with real objections (if there are any) would come forward so that we can 
finish this business and get on with securing IP traffic ASAP.  I don't 
think that this is an unreasonable demand.  
	I do think that the chairs are being awfully generous to those with 
objections to Photuris.  I also think that those with objections might 
just be Phantoms of a collectively over-active imagination, and this 
opinion will strengthen as time goes on and these phantom objections 
continue to keep themselves hidden from the rest of us too dumb to think 
them up ourselves.

Todd
References: