Re: Son of IKE: A proposal for moving forward

[Uri Blumenthal <uri@optonline.net>]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>  > Stu, the point is not to LIMIT the protocol to VPN scenarios! The
>  > point is that VPN scenarios MUST BE INCLUDED/SUPPORTED,
>  > mentioned because (as I understood) some argued that it's unnecessary.
>  >
>  > As I understood Michael, he doesn't want the overhead involved
>  > with VPN functionality support. But in my view (and in view of some
>  > other WG members) - cutting it out will reduce the protocol to unusable.
> 
> I'm not sure that that's what I meant, but I can
> see how it would be construed that way..........
> .....You've taken this to mean my suggesting
> that the split should VPN/not-VPN, but that's
> just one way to carve the problem space up.

My point - I *don't* want/care to carve the space. I see a
basic minimal set of requirements that a key mgmt protocol 
must support in order to be usable vs. just mathematically
correct.

It appears to me that your minimal set is even smaller, 
and what you consider still usable - isn't usable for me
and other members because it doesn't cover scenarios
that we belieev are essential.
-- 
Regards,
Uri-David
-=-=-<>-=-=-
<Disclaimer>