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

Re: Heartbeats draft available

To: akrywani@newbridge.com
Subject: Re: Heartbeats draft available
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:29:41 +0930
CC: "'Tero Kivinen'" <kivinen@ssh.fi>, "'Ricky Charlet'" <rcharlet@redcreek.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <000601bf96ff$a2f44e90$06dba8c0@andrewktest.timestep.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:

<trimmed...> 

> Negotiation is not a requirement of IPsec heartbeats; it is a requirement of
> good protocol design. If there are options, or if there is any possibility
> of needing options in the future, there should be negotiation.

So, I guess you would say that tcp, udp, smtp, ftp, ip, and many other
currently deployed non-negotiating protocols are poorly designed, right?
I think many would argue that simplicity, as in "only that which is
necessary and sufficient for meeting the intended purpose" is a truer
measure of goodness with respect to protocol design.

Scott

Follow-Ups:

RE: Heartbeats draft available

From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <akrywani@newbridge.com>

References:

RE: Heartbeats draft available

From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <akrywani@newbridge.com>

Prev by Date: Macintosh IPSec Clients - Progress-to-date
Next by Date: Re: Macintosh IPSec Clients - Progress-to-date
Prev by thread: RE: Heartbeats draft available
Next by thread: RE: Heartbeats draft available
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread