[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OAKLEY/ISAKMP/SKIP design group
Hello everyone,
I would also like to express my disappointment (and my customers')
regarding the outcome of the OAKLEY/ISAKMP/SKIP design group.
My company, like many others, tries to provide its customers with
with the best technologies in a timely manner. We have always
looked to the IETF to provide working, interoperable, scalable, sound, and
in many cases state-of-the-art solutions to networking problems.
IETF working groups have consisted of the best minds in the industry
working toward very explicit objectives. These groups have been able
to avoid most of the red tape found in formal standards bodies
in order to obtain quick practical objectives.
I am sorry to see that key management, the mechanism required to make
network layer security practical and useful, will not be available
in a unified form backed with the group's consensus. There are some
very good proposals and a significant number working implementations.
It is truly a shame after so much effort of so many people.
However my company must address the fact that network layer
security can be quite useful and is required by its customers. My company
must provide a solution. I hoped that it would be a draft based on
a unified solution from this work group.
Currently, we have based our implmentations on SKIP, which seems significatnly
more mature than the others. But most importantly, it solves our customers'
problems. This is all our customers care about! And as long as the
technology achieves this, we are satisfied.
So I think it is important to note that those who need network layer
security with key management will have it. This work group may not
endorse, like, or acknowledge it. But it will continue to exist and might
even proliferate.
If the working group cannot reach consensus, maybe it should let the market
be the judge. The market will certainly do this anyway. Mutiple drafts
on the standards track are better than none. And if one catches on, this
working group and the IETF will still maintain significant influence over
its design and use.
Regards,
Derek Palma
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Palma Email: dpalma@netcom.com
Net Research, Inc. Direct:(510) 487-6439
32536 Monterey Way Main: (510) 487-6300
Union City, CA 94587 FAX: (510) 487-6072
Message-Id: <199608301718.NAA04790@jekyll.piermont.com>
To: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: Patents by Sun?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:26:28 EDT."
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 13:18:14 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Rodney Thayer writes:
> I believe that if you're willing to dig, you can go to the Patent Office web
> site at www.uspto.gov and look it up by number.
Unfortunately, this one was only granted a few days ago so the data at
uspto.gov isn't up yet if the patent is real.
Perry