[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IKE must have no Heirs
At 1:30 PM -0700 8/15/01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>Steve,
>
> The fact that IPSEC has only gained widespread acceptance in the VPN
>market and is not being employed for its intended purpose, the fact that
>five years after the event the group is under an IESG injunction to get its
>act together suggest to me that those who were immediately responsible for
>the current situation should not be so openly contemptious and dismissive of
>those who might have useful ideas on how to remedy the current situation.
>
> I do not much care for the history of the internal politics of any
>IETF group, let alone the personal campaign stories of the combatants in the
>IKE vs SKIP wars. Nor for that matter am I as you suggest 'fond of SKIP',
>rather I have an aversion to a specification that introduces nine separate
>protocols for performing a simple key exchange.
>
> Phill
>
If you're not familiar with the history, or the details of the
protocols in question, then perhaps you ought not offer comments
suggesting otherwise.
Your messages have the flavor of "you poor kerks in IPsec have made a
mess of this, perhaps because I was not here to help. now I'm here to
help."
I have no trouble being both contemptous and dismissive in your case,
because I have endured your "assistance" in PKIX for several years.
There at least you had some inkling of what was going on, but none
the less managed to produce little in the way of tangible results,
i.e., RFCs, whole offering lots of comments.
Here, where you have demonstrated even less understanding of the
subject matter, it is not at all clear how much help you can render,
other than promoting your pet technology.
Clear enough Phill?
Steve
References: