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

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

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


  Since it seems that we need to show the support on the list *AGAIN*,
I'll add my $0.02.

  I do not support reopening this issue. 
  I support the consensus reached at memphis. If you need AH, use AH.
  And, as David has pointed out:

> I just think it's silly to write a separate < 1 page RFC to specify
> something that:
> 
>  1) has semantic and performance properties that are useful to some,
>  2) is short and easy to describe in the base ESP specification,
>  3) has zero impact on developers' compliance with the standard, and
>  4) will be implemented if there's market demand and won't be otherwise,
>     *regardless* of where it is documented.

  Since writing such a document is so very easy, I would suggest that
those that are interested in having encryption-less ESP write that
document, and advance it to standard on its own. There is no reason to
put any mention in the base document.

   :!mcr!:            |  Network security programming, currently
   Michael Richardson |     with DataFellows F-Secure IPSec
 WWW: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBM4ItoqZpLyXYhL+BAQGFZwMAiaXWmkjinL5tffn9s7ZbXJ8zZUYBXC9x
UNM95s/ONiSGkBZEf5OHkwQrYBY8Tk8QmrrD0dakYpwObr8JOfCqSF1wh4STpX3P
WREUuRvWH2I0QDCm78HJC/yInWnnN7BD
=UXlg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
References: