[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
214.100])
by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26118; Thu, 11 Mar 2
004 14:35:49 -0500 (EST)
org)
authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp
(tls_cipher TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1B1RZZ-0005GG-00; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:54:09 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:54:08 -0500
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Cc: postmaster@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: RESENT: Message from CFRG concerning proposed change in IKEv2
Message-ID: <20040311145408.GA11512@thunk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring
X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated
X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm)
X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this
X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas
X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant
X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this
X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to <http://www.habeas.com/report/>.
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
It has come to our attention that for some reason this e-mail message
from David McGrew mysteriously didn't get sent to the ipsec list
mailing list, so I am resending it.
I'm also cc'ing this note to the postmaster at lists.tislabs.com so
they can investigate why this note didn't make it through.
- Ted
--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <mcgrew@cisco.com>
Received: from po14.mit.edu (po14.mit.edu [18.7.21.72])
by po14.mit.edu (Cyrus v2.1.5) with LMTP; Mon, 01 Mar 2004 10:48:35 -050
0
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu by po14.mit.edu (8.12.4/4.7) id i21
FmY5u000184; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71])
by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id i21FmXHm00
7467
for <tytso@mit.edu>; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:48:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238)
by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2004 07:59:49 +0000
Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171
.71.163.14])
by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i21FmTuA002541;
Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.34.251.102] (stealth-10-34-251-102.cisco.com [10.34.251.102])
by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR)
with SMTP id AQT57036;
Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:46:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.10.10402250917250.33252-100000@ornavella.watson.ibm.com
>
References: <Pine.A41.4.10.10402250917250.33252-100000@ornavella.watson.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <9FBFC5D4-6B97-11D8-A301-0003935495EC@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: canetti <canetti@watson.ibm.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com, cfrg@ietf.org,
Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>
From: "David A. McGrew" <mcgrew@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Re: your mail
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:46:37 -0500
To: byfraser@cisco.com, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606)
X-Spam-Score: -4.9
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
Ted, Bard,
please accept this terse summary as the CFRG consensus. Ran and I have
heard it echoed both on and off of the list, without any significant
contention.
Best regards,
David
On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:18 AM, canetti wrote:
>
> I concur.
>
> Ran
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, David A. McGrew wrote:
>
>> Here is my personal $0.02: the change is well motivated, the solution
>> is good (it requires storing two extra keys, which seems not to be a
>> big deal), and if the spec can be rev'ed in the next couple of weeks,
>> I
>> vote to do it.
--FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--