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

RE: L2TP+IPsec and IKE authentication



It's really nice to see this list not degrading to ad hominem attacks. It
keeps the discussion productive.

Oh wait...
jan


On Wed, 24 May 2000, Stephen Kent wrote:

> Glen,
> 
> >  <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> >  > 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.
> 
> 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 standards 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
> 

 --
Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847



References: