compression transform conclusions

[Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[response to Bob Monsour's proposal]

I believe his charactarization of the discussion so far is accurate.

I believe it is the rough consensus of the group that compression
should be part of the ESP transform, one way or the other, with or
without statefulness, parameter negotiation, sequence numbers, etc.

I myself think the ESP transform is excessively complex as it is,
regardless of the compression features.  I think this will interfere
with deployment and will increase the risk of security problems due
to buggy implementations.

But, I do think Bob's proposal represents the view of the group, so
I think that's what we should go with.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Comment: PGP by ViaCrypt

iQCVAgUBMpTWPMKmlvJNktGxAQGoywQAgAhOO/aGTYhZsqfZvspaGq9Azcgrr+F6
ZeWZf08n157opre07UTVr98wujdJs+PFo0/1IWApGioQUwV4tV9tbN062SSu3+F1
x29e954kB5C801pA1IG1MwXa1vtdQsA8El4D5igRg4ug1iHCMaYags8frCgLP9co
xxSXdN8qhFg=
=Uq+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

               Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>       +1 617 332 7292
               Sable Technology Corp, 246 Walnut St., Newton MA 02160 USA
               Fax: +1 617 332 7970           http://www.shore.net/~sable
                           Communications Software Development

---

• Prev by Date: IPsec Interoperability Week #1
• Next by Date: Re: Any work in IPsec multicast key management?
• Prev by thread: RE:Packet-by-packet compression within IPSec
• Next by thread: Unexpected silence (Test posting)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread