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

Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues

To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
From: Sami Vaarala <svaarala@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:05:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <200203211629.g2LGTgV01865@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Reply-To: silvere@iki.fi
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Michael,

>     Sami> What new implementors would need, imho, is a document that
>     Sami> specifies
> 
>   a BCP.

BCP is one alternative.  But instead of having the implementor first
read three specs that don't really make sense, and then read a BCP
that says "ignore the specs, do this instead", it might be worthwhile
to consider "re-specifying" IKEv1.  Such re-specification could combine
the three documents, and also contain the clarifications that all
implementors need to know anyway.

-Sami




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

References:
- Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
Next by Date: Re: pre-shared key v RSA encryption or RSA signature authentication modes
Prev by thread: Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
Next by thread: Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread