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

Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues

To: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 16:06:38 -0800
CC: ipsec@tis.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <4D0A23B3F74DD111ACCD00805F31D8100AF81615@RED-MSG-50>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Richard Draves wrote:
> 
> In theory IPsec could support many combinations and permutations of headers.
> (Infinitely many in fact.) In current practice it appears that only a few
> possibilities make sense. I agree that only these few possibilities should
> be mandatory. But I strongly object to ruling out combinations that today
> appear unnecessary. Who knows what the future will bring? Allowing
> implementations today to behave "Hmm, they asked for BAC. That can't be
> right. I'll pretend it was ABC." will unnecessarily limit future
> flexibility.

Here, here.

References:

RE: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues

From: Richard Draves <richdr@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: Re: minor inconsistency in arch doc (maybe)
Next by Date: Re: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Prev by thread: RE: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Next by thread: RE: IBM VPN Bakeoff Issues
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread