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

Re: IPSEC WORKING GROUP LAST CALL

Alex Alten <Andrade@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> My view is that it's just another tool to be used to solve certain
> types of problems. Whether you realize it or not, we have been
> outmaneuvered by other communities with different desires. Their
> position is now being reinforced by members of the industry who are
> coming up with solutions meeting this requirement.

Irrelevant.

However, bringing up this point strikes me more as a "delay the process
by introducing flamage" attempt than anything else.

> Well, let's agree to disagree. My contention is that the establishment
> of this pattern of trust is equally difficult for PK and symmetric
> type of ciphers, regardless of whether we are talking about intra- or
> inter- organization communications.

Technically or Philosophically? Barring design weaknesses, this is a
ludicrous statement technically. And this is the wrong point in the
design cycle to introduce "back to the drawing board" philosophical
arguments. Those would be better handled by introduction of a new design
effort (e.g. by some other group, or -- if this group -- at some other
time).

This group has already spent years on public key and privacy issues.
Don't you think it's at least a tiny bit arrogant to ask everyone to
not publish the resulting specifications?

-- 
Raul