[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: compare-jfk-sigma.txt
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I frankly think that we need a lot more policy to be communicated (both
> negotiation style and agreement style).
> If you feel that this belongs in another protocol, I won't argue with that.
> But, I strongly think that it must exist.
Agreed.
IKE has been successful partly because it does meet this need, in a
half-baked and sometimes-inadequate way.
It is not unreasonable to argue that it should be in a separate protocol.
But it *is* unreasonable to argue that it should be in a separate protocol
*which is to be defined later*. If you want this taken out of son-of-IKE,
you need to specify how the functionality is to be replaced. That means a
protocol spec, not just a promise to write one someday.
Personally I see no particular need to separate the two, and much harm
that might result. I think this notion comes from the peculiar world-view
of PFKEY, which solves half the problem and pretends that the other half
doesn't exist. Yes, it makes the world simpler, but...
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net
References: