[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Deafening Silence
TimeStep Corp. is currently developing the S/WAN toolkit and also an
implementation of ISAKMP/Oakley that will utilize that toolkit.
The current draft of both ISAKMP and Oakley do need to be edited and
resubmitted, plugging up some holes that exist with identifiers and so
forth... but they can be currently used to develop an implementation.
For interoperability however, we, the mailing-list recipients, need to
go over these drafts and bring up any concerns, comments or questions
that we have so that the authors' next drafts will be good enough for
interoperability.
Roy
>----------
>From: John T O'Hara[SMTP:johara@ftp.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 1996 1:45 PM
>To: ipsec@TIS.COM
>Subject: 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
>
>
>