[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: