[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: problems with draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> Internet drafts are written in a mix of English and jargon; sometimes the
> two languages overlap and it confuses people.
I don't actually think that's an issue here...
> Obviously, Dan knows what the
> intent of the wording in the IKE RFC is; I don't see how you can argue with
> that. Most of the rest of us figured it out as well.
The problem with standards which rely on "well, everybody knows that where
it says WX_Z it really means WXQZ" is precisely that not everybody *does*
know. Dan surely knows what the RFC was supposed to say, but that's not
what it actually says.
Moreover, I think this has slightly missed our point. We are not just
arguing that there is a different interpretation possible here, or that it
is the preferred interpretation in the absence of supplementary folklore
(although we do make both those claims).
We contend that our interpretation is *superior*. It improves the
protocol's robustness, and permits solving certain vexing problems in a
much simpler way than Tim Jenkins proposes, and does this (as verified by
both analysis and practical experience) without introducing significant
implementation difficulties or interoperability problems.
The primary criterion for choice when resolving ambiguities should be
technical merit, not closeness to the original intent.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net
Follow-Ups:
References: