[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Concerns
> Well, at the IPSEC wg, [...] the vast
> majority of the room were from vendor-types who said, "we don't care
> which one you choose; we're not competent to make that choice. But we
> don't have to implement two solutions. Pick one."
When Jeff Schiller asked how many had no preference, the number who
raised their hands was a very very small fraction -- perhaps 15 to 20
people in all.
_________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford crawdad@fnal.gov Fermilab
PGP: D5 27 83 7A 25 25 7D FB 09 3C BA 33 71 C4 DA 6A
Message-Id: <199609171500.LAA27735@jekyll.piermont.com>
To: Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>
Cc: danmcd@pacific-86.eng.sun.com, ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: Using SKIP as inspiration, not a
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:00:53 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Hilarie Orman writes:
> Is there then consensus for including in-line keys with a non-PFS key
> determination mode as a required component of a key distribution
> protocol?
I don't think so, but I suspect the folks from the Sun Internet
Commerce Group will differ. :)
Perry