-- BEGIN included message
- To: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
- Subject: Re: Comments on ipsec-arch-sec-01.txt
- From: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@fet.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:35:01 -0700
- Organization: Furukawa Electric Technologies, Inc.
- References: <v03102809b04cd4abf501@[128.89.30.17]> <Chameleon.875016355.rja@c8-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com>
Here we go again... Once again, let me qualify this by saying that it is not so much this particular post as it is the general issue raised here that I am commenting on: > Requiring that the tunnel/transport-mode distinction be part of the SA > will break several existing implementations that my employer is using. > It also goes against the grain of not changing the specification in a way > that makes existing conforming implementations non-conforming. The convenience of your employer *should not* be an issue here. How this ever became a criteria for deciding if a change is appropriate (if in fact it has) is beyond me. We are talking about the *world's* communications system here; not just the one which will be used by Cisco, BBN, USR, or <fill in the blank>. If it is inconvenient to make a design change which corrects a flaw in the system, that is the price you pay for leading the crowd - that is why we call it 'the bleeding edge'.
-- END included message