Re: divergent interpretations of IKE/IPsec - interop issues

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


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

  I actually would have liked us to do this and then attempt to rev IKE.
  This was shot down a year ago as a waste of time :-)

  I believe that Andrew Krywaniuk has proposed to do precisely what you
suggest. 
  I also agree that the Spencer draft would benefit from complementary
viewpoints - we would welcome such input.  If all of the text is pasted into
Andrew's document... that's cool too.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBPJpFS4qHRg3pndX9AQEUVAQA7HW2dBn/AYZ47PewrAH/3skcWvklusWS
e8OB9RxIuWOkwdNLbTfUJ4MKL2Fhd1nvkaclcUj5LMy1dxXEZ55A1CV5Hps2sm2g
NC1yesQQ3rSMm8iHzQOHe3Tco+/JSBXadiLbH7hqB4g1swHb57/or8uwJfjly0Tf
VkBK+04B3Ic=
=xGOu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----