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

RE: STOP: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-harkins-ipsra-crack-00.txt



The charter of this workgroup clearly says:

"The WG strongly prefers mechanisms that require no changes to AH, ESP or
IKE protocols. If such changes are deemed necessary, the IPSec WG is
contracted to carry out such changes."


According to it, it is certainly in the power of this workgroup to decide
that protocols such as H****d or C***K are the correct approach ("If such
changes are deemed necessary ...").

It is indeed out of the scope for this WG to discuss the technical merits of
H****d vs. C***K, but this was not the current thread. The current thread
discussed the possibility that was explicitly defined in the charter.

In the answers of the getcert straw poll, the option that getcert is not the
right solution was very popular, even though it was "not an option". Maybe
we should have a straw poll to decide if extensions to IKE are necessary to
give a good solution to this working group needs.

Moshe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ipsra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-ipsra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul
> Hoffman / VPNC
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 7:55 PM
> To: Waters, Stephen; Scott G. Kelly
> Cc: ietf-ipsra@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: STOP: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-harkins-ipsra-crack-00.txt
>
>
> This entire thread is out of scope for the IPSRA WG, as you all know.
> Please stop now.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>