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

Re: Deafening Silence

Ben Stoltz wrote:
> Please take a closer look at Schiller's note.
> ISAKMP/OAKLEY is only mandatory for IPv6. ISAKMP/Oakley and SKIP are
> on an equal footing for IPv4.

ISAKMP/Oakley is mandatory for IPv6 because only in IPv6 is IPSEC
mandatory. It isn't completely clear what mandatory would mean in the
IPv4 context (though I can think of some interpretations). However I
think you go to far to say that ISAKMP/Oakley and SKIP are on equal
footing. They are not. It is important that the working group complete
the work on ISAKMP/Oakley so we have a deployable solution for IPv6 and
for IPv4.

                           -Jeff



Message-Id: <199610082100.OAA10269@denwa.incog.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95
To: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
cc: ipsec@TIS.COM, Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>, wu@csc.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Deafening Silence 
X-Url: http://www.incog.com/~stoltz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 14:00:17 -0700
From: Ben Stoltz <stoltz@denwa.incog.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

(speaking as an individual)

As far as the working group activities go, I understand the need to
complete the work on ISAKMP/Oakley. I did not mean to imply that SKIP
requires as much of the working group's time. There are trade-offs with both
key management schemes and the cost of the more complex implementation
is, of course, a correspondingly large amount of work.

However, you did state that you would like to see a set of SKIP RFCs
that fully define the SKIP approach. It is my impression that adequate
SKIP drafts exist and that it should be appropriate to advance them to
last call. Please explain if I am in error.

Respectfully,

 Ben Stoltz

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, jis@mit.edu said:
>I would like to see the IPSEC working group create three sets of RFCs.
...
> o A Set of RFCs which fully define the SKIP approach. These RFCs will 
>   follow the normal IETF standards tack ultimately resulting in a 
> protocol that is ELECTIVE for IPv4 and is ELECTIVE for IPv6. 


> Ben Stoltz wrote:
> > Please take a closer look at Schiller's note.
> > ISAKMP/OAKLEY is only mandatory for IPv6. ISAKMP/Oakley and SKIP are
> > on an equal footing for IPv4.
> 
> ISAKMP/Oakley is mandatory for IPv6 because only in IPv6 is IPSEC
> mandatory. It isn't completely clear what mandatory would mean in the
> IPv4 context (though I can think of some interpretations). However I
> think you go to far to say that ISAKMP/Oakley and SKIP are on equal
> footing. They are not. It is important that the working group complete
> the work on ISAKMP/Oakley so we have a deployable solution for IPv6 and
> for IPv4.
> 
>                            -Jeff