[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: transport-friendly ESP
- To: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>, ipsec@tis.com
- Subject: Re: transport-friendly ESP
- From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo@uu.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:44:27 -0500
- cc: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>, end2end-interest@isi.edu, tsv@ee.lbl.gov, diff-serv@BayNetworks.COM, ecn-interest@research.att.com, red-impl@lbl.gov, jis@MIT.EDU, mleech@nortel.ca
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:56:03 PST." <v03110701b2d5a98d9791@[171.69.116.90]>
- Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
why isn't the answer "just use TLS"???
a requirements doc which did a "compare and contrast"
analysis would be interesting reading.
<soapbox>
if we had a nickel's worth of session layer in the APIs,
this would be easy to insert even for apps which "don't
know nothin'". moreover, a flyweight session mechanism
would solve a bunch of other problems as well which people
are addressing by inventing a zillion different new flat
tires.
so the recurring decision is...
fix the architecture? hack yet more ugly cruft?
fix the architecture? hack yet more ugly cruft?
fix the architecture? hack yet more ugly cruft?
to the casual observer, it sure seems like the
second alternative has become
"The DOH! of the IETF"
-mo
</soapbox>
Follow-Ups:
References: