[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: L2TP+IPsec and IKE authentication
Glen,
<excerpt> <<snip>
</excerpt>
<excerpt>> So, what is disturbing
> about this argument is that we're making architectural
accommodations
> for what would normally not be subject to an IETF standard. This is
> even more surprising because in most (if not all) of the other
> security standards I can think of, we are amazingly silent about
> these sorts of assurance issues. Thus I am forced to conclude that
> the departure from this precedent is driven more by market(ing)
> forces than by technology or security concerns.
God forbid we would allow reality to impinge upon the standardization
process.
</excerpt>
Often those who disparage standards and cite (their version of) reality
as the ultimate test of relevance are those who find solace in the
ability of dominant market players to set de facto standards. Such
<italic>standards</italic> need not undergo the scrutiny that the IETF
usually imposes on proposals, making life easier for the developers, if
not, ultimately, users.
It's so nice to see that the disregard for standards processes that you
honed during your tenure at Microsoft has not been lost in your
transition to Cisco.
Steve
Follow-Ups:
References: