IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Architecture-discuss] 8+8 history (Re: Sources of architectural change)

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> Wed, 02 November 2005 10:56 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EXGHv-0006RS-1n; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:56:15 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EXGHt-0006RN-5N for architecture-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 05:56:13 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26934 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 05:55:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EXGWR-0003K6-RX for architecture-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 06:11:17 -0500
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with ESMTP id jA2AtdS12908; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:55:40 +0100
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jA2Atdbg054869; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:55:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200511021055.jA2Atdbg054869@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: [Architecture-discuss] 8+8 history (Re: Sources of architectural change)
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:31:13 +0100. <6FD12FDCBB470881DF31DCEC@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 11:55:39 +0100
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/architecture-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: architecture-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   The IPNG WG seemed to achieve "rough consensus" that GSE was not a viable 

=> this was done at the interim meeting at Palo Alto February 1997.

   approach; the arguments against GSE were summarized in the draft 
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis.
   
   At some later time, this draft was proposed for publication.
   
=> the last time I asked why it was not published the answer was
some authors were not convinced the draft was really about the
Mike O'Dell's proposal (BTW this is a serious reason to drop it).

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: IMHO the proposal (the real one or the one described in the ESD
analysis) had a serious security problem as most two-space systems
before HIP...

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email