RE: Son of IKE: A proposal for moving forward

[Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>]

ARRRRRGGGGHHHH.

I am not proposing this for anything. I was just
giving background as to how I arrived at making
something that was really small and looked a lot
like JFK. It was an _experiment_.

	     Mike

Paul Hoffman / VPNC writes:
 > 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