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

Standarisation status (was Re: Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation)

To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Standarisation status (was Re: Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation)
From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:25:25 -0500
Cc: tytso@MIT.EDU, rgm-sec@htt-consult.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Feb 1998 17:18:09 -0500". <199802092218.RAA08119@carp.morningstar.com>
References: <199802092218.RAA08119@carp.morningstar.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

In message <199802092218.RAA08119@carp.morningstar.com>, Ben Rogers writes:
> 
> Please don't dismiss this message as creating unnecessary changes "at
> this late date".  I have been hearing that for nearly six months, while
> the WG is seeming to stagnate under the burden of an unnecessarily
> bloated protocol.

Speaking of which:

WHERE ARE THE FINAL DOCUMENTS?

I remember a bug push to get everything ready for the December IETF, and then
a promise that they'd be ready shortly thereafter. Are we *ever* going to
publish this puppy?

-- 
Harald

Follow-Ups:

Re: Standarisation status (was Re: Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation)

From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>

References:

Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation

From: Ben Rogers <ben@Ascend.COM>

Prev by Date: Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation
Next by Date: Re: Unnecessarily bloated IV calculation
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC and NFS
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread