Mr. Simpson Your comments are out of line! >Recently, the WG chairs (without any stimulating WG comments) have tried >to move the WG toward a non-orthogonal all-in-one approach for ESP. There is a very clear consensous for a mandatory transform with ESP that contains both confidentiality and integrity. I have no bias to drive the specifications toward anything but to complete the best specification capturing the requirements and consensus of the working group. While you may find long exchanges of rhetoric stimulating, most the working group have better ways to spend their free time. Please direct your delusions of intrigue to other venues. If your comments have any purpose besides inflating the count of messages on this list containing your return address, please rephrase them as specific technical recommendations. Paul A. Lambert IPSEC Co-Chair
-- BEGIN included message
- To: ipsec@tis.com
- Subject: AH and ESP Orthogonality
- From: "William Allen Simpson " <ipsec-request@neptune.tis.com>
- Date: 11 Mar 96 22:07:45
For the past several years, this WG (and others such as SIP, SIPP, and IPng, and other protocol designers such as SSL) strongly supported orthogonality between the Authentication and Encapsulation (both privacy and compression) facilities. Recently, the WG chairs (without any stimulating WG comments) have tried to move the WG toward a non-orthogonal all-in-one approach for ESP. Last week, Ran Atkinson stood at the microphone, and stated (without elaboration) that his previous support for an orthogonal approach was "a serious mistake". I ask, what was the mistake? WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
-- END included message