(Slightly old mail... catching up.)
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> I say let's figure out the camps, and write a protocol that satisfies ONE of
> the camps (and later we'll write another that satisfies the other, if they
> decide there's still a need to do so).
The problem with this is that it *guarantees* that there will be no 90%
solution implemented... even if one is technically possible.
As witness the latest "having and eating cake" thread, it's imperative to
explore 90%-solution possibilities *thoroughly* -- which we have not yet
done! -- before giving up on the idea. Giving up on it, and accepting a
fragmentation of the user community, is an irrevocable step. Going from
one to two protocols, if it later becomes necessary, is much easier than
going from two to one, when the possibility later becomes obvious.
> A straw-poll should quickly show if there's a 90% that agree on something in
> this group.
What does "this group" consist of? The ones who feel motivated enough to
respond? That's not even a representative sample of the mailing list, let
alone of the IPsec user community.
> As for middle-of-the-road, I fear that it'll be so-so at everything, and not
> very good at anything at all...
Just like TCP?
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net