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

Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator

To: Derrell Piper <piper@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:42:26 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199707212254.PAA10567@pita.cisco.com>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 21 Jul 1997 18:12:04 EDT." <3.0.1.32.19970721181204.007da320@pop3.pn.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

So it does.  I was thinking about what's in the architecture document for
guidelines in the 'must implement' department.

Do we really have both documents dictating things?  Should we?

At 03:54 PM 7/21/97 -0700, you wrote:
>The DOI has always listed both SHA-1 and MD5 as MUST implement.
>
>Derrell
>
>

Follow-Ups:

Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>

References:

Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator

From: Derrell Piper <piper@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: draft-ietf-ipsec-cbc-00.txt
Next by Date: Re: Re[6]: ISAKMP performance
Prev by thread: Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator
Next by thread: Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread