John, >1) Paul, your remarks to Rich Skrenta were inappropriate. Please see my earlier note to Rich. We are in a delicate period where a decision is being made and the working group cannot afford to bicker. Applicability statements are not useful this week since the working group has not reached consensus. A decision will be mandated. >4) I am extremely concerned that we seem to have started >yet another round of "let's reexamine what we're trying to do here." No. It is too late. A decision is being made and will be posted very soon by Jeff Schiller. To the group as a whole - please lighten up on the rhetoric. The group has been polarized and now needs to move forward in a unified manner. I suggest we call a truce in the key management protocol debate and wait for the IETF decision on this topic. Regards, Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul Lambert Director of Security Products Oracle Corporation Phone: (415) 506-0370 500 Oracle Parkway, Box 659410 Fax: (415) 633-2963 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 E-Mail: palamber@us.oracle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Secure Jobs" -> send resumes to: palamber@us.oracle.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- BEGIN included message
- To: ipsec@tis.com
- Subject: Concerns
- From: "John Lawler <jlawler@vpnet.com>" <ipsec-request@neptune.hq.tis.com>
- Date: 16 Sep 96 16:38:47
- Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.hq.tis.com
I have been reading and rereading this list's traffic for several days and am becoming increasingly concerned at the way this process is, or more appropriately, isn't working. A few comments: 1) Paul, your remarks to Rich Skrenta were inappropriate. While YOU may not have asked for his "SKIP Summary", other people on this list had. There was nothing "market-ey" about the posting and I believe it was a perfectly reasonable thing to add to the discussion. In fact, I have been waiting for a similar docuement from the ISAKMP group. 2) Paul, you made a comment (uncalled for, I believe) about Sun's intransigence over SKIP. I must say thay I have not found the ISAKMP supporters to be any less intransigent. In seems very clear to me that pretty much everyone has settled into one camp or another--if there is any intransigence, there seems to be more than enough blame to go around on BOTH sides. 3) I have been subscribed to this list for longer than I can remember, but I still have yet to see a formal list of *agreed upon* characteristics the group is looking for in a key management system. What "lists" do exist seem to be strongly held personal preferences, but I have yet to see a list of criteria developed by and approved through concensus. Some people like in-band keying, some don't. Some people think the world will stop orbiting the sun without PFS, and others don't. Based on that, I do not see how anyone can possibly accuse ANY of the proposals as being either in or out of compliance with a non-existant list of criteria. 4) I am extremely concerned that we seem to have started yet another round of "let's reexamine what we're trying to do here." While a good idea in principle, we keep seem to do this, resulting in a constant moving of the goal posts. It is no wonder that we are having such difficulty reaching concensus! ***** It is rather clear from the recent traffic and from the votes in Montreal that people are split down the middle over SKIP vs ISAKMP. At this point I believe pretty much everyone is talking past each other. Based on this rather deeply entrenched split, I honestly do not believe this issue is going to be resolved now or even in San Jose. Therefore, I will make the same proposal I made in Montreal: Let *BOTH* SKIP and ISAKMP move ahead in the standards process, and let the marketplace decide which is better. If the IETF does not get something out NOW, then the market will come up with something of their own and all of your debating will be moot. I will reiterate the statement I made several weeks ago: WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO DELAY THE GROWTH OF THIS INDUSTRY. People need solutions today, and if they cannot get them through the IETF, they will get them elsewhere. -John Lawler
-- END included message