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

Re: Assigned Numbers for AES

To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: Assigned Numbers for AES
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@solidum.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:36:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:27:16 EDT." <000f01c02e63$04188650$d23e788a@andrewk3.ca.newbridge.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


>>>>> "andrew" == andrew krywaniuk <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com> writes:
    andrew> Hey, I would prefer that the IANA did make exceptions in cases where there
    andrew> were multiple deployed implementations. It seems silly (or rather
    andrew> excessively bureaucractic) to punish implementers of a widely used protocol
    andrew> because of a technicality.

  No, it isn't a technicality. It is called interoperability.
  If you don't want that, then don't implement IETF protocols at all.

  The mechanism for testing and deploying extensions is well documented, but
apparently many developers just won't read that section.

   :!mcr!:            |  Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
   Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>
 Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html
	mailto:mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca	mailto:mcr@solidum.com

References:

RE: Assigned Numbers for AES

From: andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com

Prev by Date: RE: IPSec test suite
Next by Date: Re: [ipsec] IPSec implementations possible on handheld OS?
Prev by thread: RE: Assigned Numbers for AES
Next by thread: AES and block size?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread