Ashar: On your complaints: >Paul, if you recall I also complained about the minutes you published >or the Dec '95, San Jose meeting, where you said that "SKIP was >designed to solve a specific multicast problem". That was how you >characterized my presentation, and I thought it a somewhat slanted >view of my presentation and protocol. I complained privately to >you then. That was over a year and a half ago, and I never saw >revised minutes. If it was San Jose then it must have been the Dec. 1994 meeting. <from the IPsec Dec. 1994 minutes>: >SKIP was designed to solve a specific multicast scenario. >The demonstration implementation of SKIP was running a >video application. SKIP provides a means to create a key >with a unique ``one-way'' key establishment. >SKIP does not provide any attribute negotiation. >A patent has been applied for by SUN on the SKIP >mechanism, but SUN has taken a position that: >``The SKIP patents (when they issue) will be placed >in the public domain. Anyone may use it if >they wish, with no rights or dues pertaining to >Sun. There will be no need to license SKIP patent rights.'' This was the first introduction of SKIP to the working group and I am sure that I did not characterize it adequately in the short review in the minutes. Please remember that this meeting had presentations on seven different key management protocols! I do not remember your private complaint, but if you had submitted written comments we might have modified the minutes in 1994. Please, if you have complaints about the minutes call or send me e-mail directly. It also helps to not wait two years to point out changes. > >First, the SKIP PFS exchange requires 2 messages, not 4-6. If we can not count the same it may illustrate why we have difficulty reaching consensous. Please submit more suitable text. If you have additional changes to the version2 of the July 96 minutes please send them to me as direct text replacements and they will be incorporated. If you wish to help further, volunteer to take the notes that we use as the basis for the minutes. Contribute rather than complain. 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: Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal
- From: "Ashar Aziz <ashar@osmosys.incog.com>" <ipsec-request@neptune.hq.tis.com>
- Date: 16 Sep 96 16:47:47
- Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.hq.tis.com
> and an updated set of minutes reflecting your clarifications have been > prepared (last week actually). No doubt. Paul, if you recall I also complained about the minutes you published for the Dec '95, San Jose meeting, where you said that "SKIP was designed to solve a specific multicast problem". That was how you characterized my presentation, and I thought it a somewhat slanted view of my presentation and protocol. I complained privately to you then. That was over a year and a half ago, and I never saw revised minutes. Now, it is entirely possible that this time revised minutes were going to be published, but you didn't acknowledge receipt of my message, and it's a coincidence that they came out just after I made my comments public. > >First, the SKIP PFS exchange requires 2 messages, not 4-6. > >This is what I presented at the talk, and is present in > >the SKIP PFS I-D. > > It is true that your presentation claimed that SKIP PFS exchange takes 2 > messages. It is also true that other members of the working group claim that > SKIP PFS takes 4 to 6 messages. So depending on who you ask the answer is 2 > to 6 messages. The meeting minutes should reflect what transpired at the meeting. They should not be a place where differences of opinion on the protocols are somehow reconciled. > I am sure that this confusion will be resolved by the working > group, but it is difficult to document in the minutes this type of difference > in opinion. If the difference of opinion is voiced at the meeting, it is fair to mention it. It is unfair to take someone else's views on my protocol, and publish it as "minutes" of my presentation when they don't correspond to my presentation or to what happened at the meeting. Ashar.
-- END included message