[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

comment on draft-spencer-ipsec-ike-implementation-01.txt

To: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Subject: comment on draft-spencer-ipsec-ike-implementation-01.txt
From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:04:35 -0500
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1011212102435.8693A-100000@spsystems.net>
Reply-To: <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

I read the Freeswan IKE implementation draft which Michael mentioned at the
IPsec meeting and I found to be very lucid. I have disagreed with some
Freeswan implementers on the past on issues like deletes, dead peer
detection, rekeying, and the meaning of the word "unique", but I was
surprised to discover that I agreed with pretty much everything they write
in this draft. I think this could be a good starting point for a BCP. I
encourage people to read it.

Andrew
-------------------------------------------
There are no rules, only regulations. Luckily,
history has shown that with time, hard work,
and lots of love, anyone can be a technocrat.

References:

Re: IKEv2 and NAT traversal

From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>

Prev by Date: RE: my attitude towards IKEv2
Next by Date: Re: Comments regarding key stretching algorithm
Prev by thread: Re: IKEv2 and NAT traversal
Next by thread: Re: IKEv2 and NAT traversal
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread