[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Requirements, Please (was: Son-of-IKE Performance )
Jan Vilhuber writes:
> That being said, how about we divert some of this energy to debating the
> requirements doc:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-son-of-ike-protocol-reqts-00.txt
Hear, hear!
It's pretty disheartening to see the sniping level go up
here when it's plainly evident that there's a lot of
convergent evolution going on. Instead of targeting
other drafts weaknesses -- especially ones that are
easily fixed -- we should be focusing most of our effort
on what the protocols are suppposed to *DO*.
JFK, for example, has made a fairly strong statement
that symmetric pre-shared keys are a non-requirement.
I haven't seen the IKEv2 take a strong position one
way or the other. Thus the only way to *really* give
the proper valuation on this subject is to get
consensus reflected into the requirements draft.
This also has the side benefit that we can talk
about contentious issues in the abstract rather
than impugning somebody's baby.
Let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
Mike
Follow-Ups:
References: