[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IKEv2 allocation policies



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


>>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC  <Paul> writes:
    >> gives more uniform results in cases where an IKEv2 extension 
    >> requires a couple of values from different registries. Your proposal 
    >> is OK, but a more consistent proposal is simply that all values 
    >> require "Expert Review".

    VPNC> Are we trying to micro-manage the future with having different 
    VPNC> categories for policies?
 
  Let's divide what you saying into two statements:

  1) that we should not have different policies for different tables
     ("micro-management")

  2) that the single policy should be expert review.


  I don't have an opinion on this. If the expert is capable, then there is
no problem.

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



  
  
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQBsVLYqHRg3pndX9AQFjWwP/SGqn1ljy+8jjm4UhOh80XZVchivbFVmt
BanBXwc0kOWrjpQQ6YI/FOskd7ajCsUmcxAOSX6iYx9Yxo5Jo8l2OHmZnZMAxWPE
Zi77IuvpGWKxlrXMhWaxkXvJWv+2MrHxvgHHZ4A7RRzNJ/Hm/KwYSceYmofT0BWm
BNfucbXWCPo=
=ddaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----