[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ESP revisions straw poll
> From: dpkemp@missi.ncsc.mil (David P. Kemp)
> And I share the discomforting feeling that procedure is being abused.
>
> * The two public IPSEC sessions in Memphis were not making a great deal
> of progress, so the developers-only session was convened on the spot to
> hash out the issues and propose solutions to the WG at large.
>
The IPSec meetings for several years have not made any tangible progress.
> * The developers group had nearly unanimous agreement not to support
> ESP without encryption.
>
Yep.
> * In response to this claim, at least eight people (including Bellovin,
> Orman, Simpson, Glatting, Lynn, Kent, Lambert, Kemp) expressed
> support for it (to varying degrees) on the public list.
>
Woah! You've got me in the wrong camp!
I'm against encryptionless ESP, as mandatory to support, or even as
_mentioned_ in the ESP base.
What I noted was that an "encryptionless" transform could be written.
It could have its own RFC number. Bellovin has recently offered.
I noted these things in order to bring the argument to a conclusion,
since the "encryptionless" camp could have their wishes as a
non-mandatory entension.
But they don't seem to be satisfied. They want to be mandatory.
> The IETF process absolutely requires that any "decisions" reached at
> meetings be confirmed by discussions on the mailing list.
Absolutely, but that has happened. It's been a month and a half!
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Follow-Ups: