[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Deafening Silence
Jeff,
Your statement leaves me confused, as I read your original decision exactly
as Ben did. I would appreciate a clarification: If SKIP and ISAKMP/Oakley
are optional and appropriate for use with IPv4, and both are to be pursued
as IETF standards, what do you mean that they are not on equal footing?
Bill
ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com said:
> I thought Schiller has made a decision about key management for this
> working group: ISAKMP/OAKLEY will be the mandatory one. Under this
> situation, I think that it is clear that in December meeting we
> should focus (in a higher priority at least) on the ISAKMP/OAKLEY
> proposal.
>
> -Felix wu@csc.ncsu.edu
----------
From: Jeffrey I. Schiller[SMTP:jis@mit.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 1996 12:37 PM
To: Ben Stoltz
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM; Hilarie Orman; wu@csc.ncsu.edu
Subject: 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.