[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Default" cipher and authenticator
It seems to me then that we have:
AH mandatories in AH and Arch and DOI
ESP mandatories in ESP and Arch and DOI
I think I'm convinced the information belongs in the AH and ESP documents,
respectively. I think it's confusing to have it in multiple places. I
think that the DOI should point you at the ESP/AH drafts for such
information. I think the arch document should, too, but I suspect Steve&co
have already done that.
At 05:48 PM 7/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:42:26 -0400
> From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.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?
>
>Rodney,
>
> The ESP and AH documents reference what certain algorithms as
>the "current default algorithms". This was done mainly to make certain
>issues (such as padding and alignment issues) more concrete and easier
>to understand.
>
> Steve and Karen has raised the question of whether or not these
>editorial comments caused problems or not. My reaction was that they
>made the text easier to understand, and so I supported leaving them in.
>It is true that doing so means that we will need to carefully proof the
>architecture document and the ESP and AH documents to make sure that
>they are coherent. However, I think this is a price that is worth
>paying.
>
> If there is a huge outcry against having that kind of
>non-normative text in the AH and ESP documents, we can have them taken
>out, of course. I view it as mainly a stylistic (and not technical)
>issue.
>
> Comments?
>
> - Ted
>
>
References: