[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Heartbeats draft available
No, I wouldn't say that (although you are wrong if you think those protocols
have no negotiation -- it is just more subtle).
Your notion of simplicity is utopian; it assumes that requirements will
never change. The negotiation protocol is very simple and precise, and at
the very least it provides a mechanism for forwards compatibility.
Andrew
--------------------------------------
Beauty with out truth is insubstantial.
Truth without beauty is unbearable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Scott G. Kelly
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:00 AM
> To: akrywani@newbridge.com
> Cc: 'Tero Kivinen'; 'Ricky Charlet'; ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Heartbeats draft available
>
>
> 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
>
References: