RE: Son of IKE: A proposal for moving forward

["Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Michael is proposing that SPUNK should
be considered as a SOI candidate. I think he was just saying that SPUNK was
sufficiently similar to JFK that all the same arguments apply.  At least
that's the assumption I was going on in my reply.

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.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> [mailto:owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com]On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman / VPNC
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:57 PM
> To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
> Subject: RE: Son of IKE: A proposal for moving forward
>
>
> At 2:39 PM -0400 6/18/02, Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> >But you're doing something unfair. You are comparing your
> own prototype KMP,
> >which has been specifically optimized for size, with a
> "typical" IPsec/IKE
> >stack (which doesn't make sense... are you comparing IKE+IPsec to
> >SPUNK+IPsec or just SPUNK?). I think we all have the ability
> to build scaled
> >down versions of our products if we want (strip out 90% of
> the crypto, etc).
> >About the only fundamental difference is the 1 vs 2 phase
> issue, and that
> >can hardly account for a factor of 10 increase in size.
>
> Another thing that might be considered unfair is the fact that we
> haven't seen an Internet Draft describing the protocol so we can see
> what it does and does not do. If such a draft existed, and the WG
> thought it was worth even scant attention, I could have included it
> in the features list document that we are using as the basis for this
> thread.
>
> [[ I certainly hope Ted and Barbara are not waiting for a new
> Internet Draft from Michael before they start asking the questions
> one at a time as they said they would start doing this week. ]]
>
> If Michael comes out with a draft, we can see how it matches or
> doesn't match the responses we get to the features that are going to
> be enumerated in the WG Real Soon Now.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>