[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPsec Minutes from Montreal



 
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

> 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