[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Deafening Silence
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Oliver,
>I would be curious to know who is implementing ISAKMP/Oakley
>at this point (who could interoperate in Jan/97)?
We, FTP Software, will certainly be aiming for it. Comments from others welcome here.
I think that the ISAKMP/OAKLEY draft was a first cut and that it's not enough for developers to implement from. The reason I suggested that we start discussing the draft was to elicit comments from the community, and pehaps to have either the original authors of the draft or a interested third party voluteer to edit the draft for ISAKMP/OAKLEY testathon use.
Without a more complete implementation draft I would venture to say that a testathon would not be as productive. I would recommend that discussions of the draft stay on this list for a while due to the wider audience.
John O'Hara
>I know about CISCO which implemented an EXTREMELY cut down
>ISAKMP/Oakley version which does not support the general framework
>very well. Using the name draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-oakley is kind of
>misleading, I think. I agree with an earlier posting, that the
>required ISAKMP/Oakley part has to be smaller than the whole
>framework. But I think there are ways to restrict ISAKMP/Oakley
>without unnecessarily complicating the not required case.
>The DOD implemented ISAKMP (Did they also do Oakley?).
>I implemented a key exchange framework which should handle the
>complete ISAKMP/Oakley framework. At this point, however, my
>implementation is still too unstable to be released to the general
>public and incomplete in a sense that not all features are implemented
>at this point.
>I also think that the drafts are not concrete enough so that 2
>implementer would come up with interoperable implementations.
>(I mean the ISAKMP and Oakley drafts not the
>draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-oakley.)
>I am working on a more detailed list of comments. I already mentioned
>some of the bugs on this or the isakmp oakley mailing list and a fix
>was promised for the next draft.
>Which drafts are considered as standards? I hope the ISAKMP and the
>Oakley draft NOT the draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-oakley.
>Oliver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.9
iQCVAgUBMl02Mi/CgyjmiURDAQFGqgP+M9oK1psQGflMeLPM0eVIbv/F/iUeEQRP
AVcE7qW22y01G+5DdWRhp1WB0ImI4kfndN1nJomSq23lm8VL+Bc8cmGNZ9qusVWM
yCVNB9YGqovc/rVOLt5NRUyfvnYAKVqj6ShcPIzmMehph2NgtHwf6bMjyEmNCZk0
6/8rXYG5TsY=
=nNFS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----