[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: