[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Position statement on IKE development
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:24:14 PDT you wrote
>
> BTW Henry,
>
> The issue is not that parts of IPsec are superfluous.
>
> The question is if IKE is broken then is IPsec also broken?
>
> - Alex
No, of course not.
And you are assuming that IKE is broken. What has been noted by all the
analysis mentiond so far is that IKE is too complex to know whether it
is broken or not. The effort is to make it less complex, get rid of
unnecessary and unused options, get rid of the inconsistent and sometimes
contradictory verbage between the 3 RFCs, and make it a specification of
a key management protocol for IPsec and IPsec only instead of the current
instantiation (RFC2407) of a protocol framework (RFC2409) of a generic
language (RFC2408).
Dan.
Follow-Ups:
References: