Re: IPsec Architecture -- proposed changes

[Matt Thomas <matt.thomas@altavista-software.com>]

At 03:58 PM 10/8/97 Time, Ran Atkinson wrote:
[snip]
>Removing the MLS text from the current specifications and
>deferring it to some later draft is counter-productive and
>is unfair to the existing MLS IPsec implementations.  Part
>of the long-standing agreements on these revisions was to
>avoid unnecessary changes that would delay forward progress.
>I believe the MLS text deferral represents such an unnecessary
>change.

I'd like chime in and support Ran.  As someone working for a
vendor which sells MLS products, having a description of how 
IPsec plays with MLS (even as minimal as exists currently) is 
required in implementing our non-MLS IPsec support since the
non-MLS support will be the basis of any MLS IPsec support.

-- 
Matt Thomas                    Internet:   matt.thomas@altavista-software.com
Internet Locksmith             WWW URL:    <coming eventually>
AltaVista Internet Software    Disclaimer: This message reflects my own
Littleton, MA                              warped views, etc.

---

References:

• IPsec Architecture -- proposed changes
• From: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
• Re: IPsec Architecture -- proposed changes
• From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: SA payloads and Next payload
• Next by Date: Re: Daemon Recovery
• Prev by thread: Re: IPsec Architecture -- proposed changes
• Next by thread: Re: IPsec Architecture -- proposed changes
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread