[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regarding Bill's draft
Ah, thank you, finally something solid that I can actually refute!
> From: Ran Atkinson <rja@cisco.com>
> Now I'll try to rehash some of the highlights
> for newcomers to this list.
>
Gosh, Ran, start right off by insulting most of the posters in the past
2 weeks. 2 implementors, and several others who have been active in
this group for over 2 years! I saw only 1 new name....
In brief, it is apparent that the chairs haven't read any draft in the
past 5 months, let alone the most recent. Most of the "issues" raised
here (#1, #2, and three in #6) were addressed as soon as they were
raised. In the #6 cases, as long ago as last October!!!
Since I am about to go to bed and cannot write such a long message now,
I will handle individual points in later messages. However, I can
quickly dispense with a few:
> 3) Bill's draft does not fully conform with Section 1.4 of RFC-1825.
>
> To conform, the following changes need to be made:
> - The text in draft-ietf-ipsec-photuris-ext-01.txt, Section 2.7
>
> 4) The DNS-SIG option should be detailed with both syntax and semantics.
>
> 5) Section 2.11 of draft-ietf-ipsec-photuris-ext-01.txt MUST be deleted.
All of these are in the Extensions draft. That draft is not germane to
the "last call". It is not finished. It contains those items which
as clearly indicated ARE _NOT_ REQUIRED in every implementation.
In fact, nobody could agree on even the format of these things, such as
Security Labels, DNS-SIG, or the AH_Sequence. There are ongoing WGs
which are deciding these items, and the Extensions will be published
when they are resolved.
So, let's stick with the actual Photuris draft, which has the required
to implement base protocol.
> In summary, the main obstacle to progress is Bill's unwillingness to
> work with the standards process and edit in accordance with WG consensus,
> existing standards-track protocols, and the WG requirements.
>
This is unmitigated hogwash!!!
I have made 10 drafts in the past year, with several significant
improvements and dozens of editorial changes. Some folks (including my
cohort Phil) have complained that there are _too_ many options from
conforming to "WG consensus".
At least one of the comments stated: "we are happy with the way the
Photuris design team has addressed those weaknesses pointed to them."
Seems to me that not only have you not read the drafts, but you are
completely out of touch with the WG!
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Follow-Ups: