[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-01.txt
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification. As long as this behaviour is optional (which I
missed) - I see no problem with it.
Dan Harkins wrote:
> This is not substantially different than the comment Shawn Mamros had
> in <3.0.32.19990602114033.00a39230@bl-mail1.corpeast.baynetworks.com> and
> my response would not be substantially different than the response I
> gave him.
>
> Dan.
>
> On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:08:21 EDT you wrote
> > Dan,
> >
> > You said:
> > "We're trying to engineer a security protocol and recommending people do
> > things that are more secure seems like a no-brainer to me."
> >
> > Sounds good, but what if I value "better performance" more than "more secure
> >"
> > and don't want to be surprised by the protocol and paranoid clients forcing m
> >y
> > gateway to switch from "secure enough and fast enough" to a "very secure and
> > very slow"?
> >
> > Slava
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
References: