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

Re: users and connections definitions


>Yep!  I firmly believe that all IETF material should be on-line, or at
>least accessible at the local university library.
>I even went out and got a copy of the ancient Voydock-Kent '83....
>Cannot do that with an ISO document.  If we didn't reference an ISO
>document in the RFC, then we didn't expect anyone to read it to
>understand the work.

	We all assume various levels of background info in our writing, and
not all of it is on-line.  I'm flattered that you went to the trouble to
locate one of my older publications, but if you had looked at more recent
ones, you would have found the definitions in question.  For example, in
"The Internet System Handbook," edited by Dan Lynch and Marshall Rose
(1993), I wrote a chapter entitled "Architectural Security" which captures
these definitions and extends them to include some refinements that we
developed during the PSRG work.  Most of this is reproduced, in more
concise form, in "Network and Internetwork Security," by William Stallings

>> 	ISO 7498-2 is a standard that, among other things, defines
>> terminology for security services.  A few years back the PSRG produced an
>> I-D that reproduced much of that terminology and set it in the TCP/IP
>> context, but the I-D never generated much interest and thus was not pursued
>> to RFC status.
>ISO 7498-2 is probably a piece of the usual ISO inaccessible ponderous
>verbiage, written largely to generate revenue.  Publication does not a
>"standard" make.

Well, I won't defend the quality of any organization's standards documents
in general, including those of the IETF, but the relevent parts of 7498-2
are not badly written.  And, in the case of ISO, publication does,
technically, make it a standard (though it does not ensure adoption and

>If PSRG produced an I-D, and it didn't get much interest, then there was
>a problem with the writing.  Produce a readable document, and reference
>it in all the IPSec documents.

Actually, I think the PSRG I-D was well written, but did not advance
because other matters were a higher priority.  But, feel free to judge for
you self.  I'm sending an MS Word file that reproduces the essence of this
work, in a newly edited form, that Rob Shirey developed for puiblication
last year, via a separate message to you.

>In fact, I'd make that your highest priority!

Bill, when you get to set my priorities, it's time to find a new job!