[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
Hi,
I am smiling to read your new ideas about a new version. During the last 5
month I did my thesis about interoperability of this big dinosaur IPSec. I
would like to point out some of my experiences during my interop tests:
- do more MUST specifications and not should or may, whatever!
Because: notifications are most of the time not clear to understand, not
recognized or not sent.
- standard is full of options, look around, who uses them? Noone! i.e.
Blowfish
- lifetype kb is not used (interoperability set to 0!), lifetime is not
negotiated.
- timing of valid or not valid SAs is a problem -> keepalives ?
Think you will solve the problems, good luck!
Christian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Scott Thomas Fanning
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:05 AM
> To: Paul Hoffman / VPNC
> Cc: Theodore Tso; Dan Harkins; Michael Richardson;
> ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: Re: Agenda for the Minneapolis meeting
>
>
> I remember that too Paul. We do not want to "negotiate" a new version.
> Lets treat this for what it is, a new version. Now, we just have to ask
> customers to use it :-)
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>
> > At 6:18 PM -0500 3/15/01, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > >That being said, I believe that if we did do a poll, we would see a
> > >strong mandate for something which is "implementation preserving".
> >
> > That poll was taken a year ago, by you, in Adelaide. If I remember
> > correctly, the result was not what you have said here. The result was
> > that people wanted a new version number in exchange for knowing that
> > it would be much easier to implement.
> >
> > --Paul Hoffman, Director
> > --VPN Consortium
>
Follow-Ups:
References: