[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Derived versus Explicit IV
>-----Original Message-----
>From: C. Harald Koch [SMTP:chk@utcc.utoronto.ca]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 11:06 AM
>To: Rob Adams
>Cc: 'ipsec@tis.com'
>Subject: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
>
>In message <01BC9752.5BD1CD80@BIGHUGE>, Rob Adams writes:
>> I agree with Roy completely here. We've had a directive from the chair to
>> obsolete 1829.
>
>Since when? I missed that directive. Where is it written down? Or did it
>perhaps occur on a mailing list not affilated with the IPsec WG?
>
>> From the same July 03 mail from Bob that Simpson quotes:
>>
>> >Thus as an educated consumer, I reject all concerns about backwards
>> >compatibility. As co-chair of a protocol group, I seriously question the
>> >value of backwards compatibility in this case, other than a foot-note and
>> >some accommodation.
>>
>> "Some accommodation" does not indicate mandatory implementation of obsolete
>> features even in the manually configured case.
>
>This message was not part of the WG discussion. Bob was not acting in any
>capacity as WG chair. I reject your analysis.
Hmm.. Seemed to me like it was part of the working group discussion. Also, I think
that the line "As co-chair of a protocol group" states pretty strongly that he was
speaking as chair. You can reject my analysis. That's your option. However, I stand
by my analysis. Why don't we let Bob be the definitive voice here. Bob?
>
>There is no reason *not* to support backwards compatablity, given an easy
>option to do so. Compatability is *always* a good thing.
>
Simply because something is easy for you does not mean it is easy for me or
even the right thing to do. I don't know of any of my customers asking for this.
I don't know if it worth supporting for me or my customer base. Currently, my
believe is that it isn't worth it.
>Frankly, I don't understand why this is even an issue, except for the fact
>that Bill Simpson raised it.
It is an issue because I haven't heard any compelling reason to support it. I don't
have any hard numbers on what implementations are in the field. I have seen no
study on the impact of not supporting it. I do not have it already and I don't have
any customers, that I know of, asking for it. If I see some hard numbers other
than just guesses, I'll reconsider my opinion. If I have customers asking for it,
I'll reconsider my opinion. This is all beside the fact the co-chair stated a very
strong opinion to obsolete it.
Bill Simpson has nothing to do with it. I would have my opinion regardless of who
raised the point. The suggestion is a bit silly. Although his style may not be to some
peoples liking, he sometimes has good points, sometimes not. Just like all the rest of
us.
I personally don't understand why this is an issue since we decided quite some time
ago. In 10 years this working group will be fondly looked back upon as the "flogging
the dead horse" group.