[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
From: Matt Thomas <matt.thomas@altavista-software.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 19:08:03 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <v03007808af9f923adfb8@[128.89.30.23]>
References: <199705141911.PAA12081@codex.cis.upenn.edu>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

At 04:01 PM 5/14/97 -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
>Angelos,
>
>	I don't mean to say your vote (well, maybe I do ;-)), but could you
>briefly describe your reason for voting against encryptionless ESP?

I'll give you mine.  The first is that I want to ship an authentication-
only IPsec implementation.  This is real easy if all I have to deal with
AH.  If I have to worry about including support encryption-less ESP it
will greatly complicate matters.

If you want the attributes of an encryptionless ESP, modify the 
definition of AH to allow it, then get it to be negotiated (the
default being the old AH behavior).  

-- 
Matt Thomas                    Internet:   matt.thomas@altavista-software.com
Internet Locksmith             WWW URL:    <coming eventually>
AltaVista Internet Software    Disclaimer: This message reflects my own
Littleton, MA                              warped views, etc.

References:

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Prev by thread: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by thread: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread