[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ISAKMP/Oakley vs SKIP: The real status
You are, of course, referring to IPv6, since that is the only place the word
"mandatory" appeared in Jeff's decision?
I too am unclear about the status of SKIP vs. ISAKMP/Oakley. Clarification
would be nice.
Bill Hunt
----------
From: PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM[SMTP:PALAMBER@us.oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 1996 4:27 PM
To: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: ISAKMP/Oakley vs SKIP: The real status
<<Message: ISAKMP/Oakley vs SKIP: The real status>>
>Is there an official statement from the workgroup
>about the status of ISAKMP/Oakley vs SKIP? I see bits
>and peices but no official statement.
The "official" statement came from Jeff Schiller (the IETF Security Area
Directory) a month ago. Please check the e-mail archive if you have not read
this announcement.
The IPsec working group is now focusing on the ISAKMP/Oakley specifications as
the mandatory to implement standard for key management. The working group is
strongly encouraged to send all comments on ISAKMP/Oakley to the list. If
something is not clear, please propose text.
I would also strongly encourage the group to pursue interoperability testing
as soon as possible. If someone would like to help coordinate testing at the
next IETF, please let me know.
After the working group has finished all editorial clarification of
ISAKMP/Oakley, work within the committee could start on incorporating optional
facilities for in-line keying. I assume that this work will be loosely based
on SKIP with slight modifications based on working group suggestions for a
consolidated architecture. Note that this will not be SKIP as currently
documented.
I also assume that the SKIP team will continue to contribute to this working
group to help create a consolidated approach for in-line keying.