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

Re: ESP New Draft

To: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: ESP New Draft
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:33:36 -0400
cc: "PALAMBER.US.ORACLE.COM" <PALAMBER@us.oracle.com>, ipsec@tis.com, jis@MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 May 1997 00:07:50 BST." <199705170409.AAA27578@codex.cis.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com


"Angelos D. Keromytis" writes:
> >As working group chair, I see no clear consensus to forbid the use
> >of ESP with a null encryption algorithm (a.k.a auth-only-ESP).
> >There have been many strong statements made to the mailing list
> >recommending that ESP always encrypt.  I've also talked to
> >implementors developing auth-only-ESP as a "valued added" option.
> >ESP has the flexibility to support any algorithm.  Clear guidelines
> >need to be provided that define the usage of these algorithms
> >including the use of a null encryption algorithm.
> 
> Paul, we had a straw poll on this list, and we had a large number of
> implementors decide in the Memphis meeting. Both were against
> auth-only-ESP. How in heaven can you say that there is no clear
> consensus ?

I strongly agree. This is one of the few times that I've seen near
unanimity for *anything* in the IETF. I didn't see *anyone* at Memphis
ask for encryptionless ESP.

> I was under the impression the WG chair is NOT supposed to make
> decisions when there *IS* a rough consensus (and this is not even
> rough).

Also true enough.

Perry

References:

Re: ESP New Draft

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

Prev by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by thread: Re: notes from developer's portion of IETF meeting
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread