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

Re: SAs and SPIs

To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: SAs and SPIs
From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 01:53:56 GMT Daylight Time
References: <2.2.32.19971001233500.006c355c@pop.erols.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com


I don't support Tom Bartee's proposed changes.  I think the 
current DOI is perfectly fine for commercial use and Internet use.  
I don't want progress to be delayed further by more changes now.
"Release markings" are a rat hole that we could spend years
debating.  I'd prefer to not go there for now.

RFC-1825 had language that was minimally sufficient for the
MLS environment.  I'd suggest retaining that language in
the ARCH document -- only for those systems that claim to provide
MLS.  The previous language specifically said the MLS details
_weren't_ applicable if the implementation didn't claim
to provide MLS, which seems right to me.

I think the WG's primary obligation at this point is to get
documents that are "good enough" (where that is != perfect)
out as standards-track RFCs.

Ran
rja@inet.org

References:

SAs and SPIs

From: Thomas Bartee <tbartee@pop.erols.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ISAKMP/Oakley does not allow negotiation on PFS requirement.
Next by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ippcp-protocol-01.txt
Prev by thread: SAs and SPIs
Next by thread: SAs and SPIs
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread