[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ADMIN: Straw Poll Results on Key Mgmt
> From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
> The requirement which Ran is referring to in RFC-1825 is that
> the key management protocol must be able to negotiate all of the
> parameters which may be associated with a security association, as found
> in section 1.4 of RFC-1825. This includes
> Encryption Algorith,
Photuris has this.
> Security Association Lifetime,
Photuris has this.
> and sensitivity label.
>
Photuris has this. Although it is only "recommended" in RFC-1825,
and therefore only listed as a Photuris extension, not required in the
base protocol.
> Right now we have a number of differnet proposals on the table,
> none of which completely meet all of the original requirements.
Not true. Photuris includes all of the features listed in RFC-1825 1.4.
This should not be surprising, as I also made contributions to that list.
So, it must be some other set of requirements that Photuris does not meet.
> However, it wouldn't be that hard to fix this; it wouldn't be hard for
> SKIP to add PFS, or Photoris to add support for full Security
> Association attributes negotiation, etc. Instead of bickering around
> playing procedural games and raising meta-issues, if the various people
> who are proposing key management protocols to this wg simply sat down
> and did the work to meet all of the requirements as originally specified
> by this wg, we could be done in relatively short order.
Ted, Phil and I already did this long ago. I'm tired of the procedural
games that others are playing. That explicitly includes our chairs.
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: