(Fwd) Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions

Ran Atkinson <rja@bodhi.cs.nrl.navy.mil> Thu, 06 April 1995 22:02 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07396; 6 Apr 95 18:02 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07392; 6 Apr 95 18:02 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01417; 6 Apr 95 18:02 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07380; 6 Apr 95 18:02 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07376; 6 Apr 95 18:01 EDT
Received: from bodhi.nrl.navy.mil by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ac01404; 6 Apr 95 18:01 EDT
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ran Atkinson <rja@bodhi.cs.nrl.navy.mil>
Message-Id: <9504061800.ZM18010@bodhi>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 18:00:07 -0400
Reply-To: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.0.0 15dec93)
To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: (Fwd) Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Orig-Sender: rja@bodhi.cs.nrl.navy.mil

I thought this note, originally posted just to IPsec,
might be of transient interest to you all.

Sorry if this is an intrusion, I won't repeat the exercise.

Ran


--- Forwarded mail from "Marcus J. Ranum" <mjr@tis.com>

To: bound@zk3.dec.com
Cc: tytso@MIT.EDU, efb@suned1.Nswses.Navy.Mil, amir@watson.ibm.com,
        perry@imsi.com, ipsec@ans.net

Jim Bound writes:
>Its real Ted and I also presented my ideas to Paul Lambert tonight and
>no one or me is saying that strategically in the IETF we should not
>specify confidentiality security.  We must do this to have a secure
>Internet.  The question on the table is how do we do this tactically?

	"We had to shitcan security in order to save it"??

	All that's happening here is that IETF is showing it has
slowly evolved to the point where it, like other standards bodies,
has become useless and entrenched, hopelessly fragmented by the
desire for representation in advance of technology and vendor
interest instead of improving the state of the art.

	It's too bad IETF didn't manage to learn from the PEM
versus PGP debacle -- if the vendors have their way, it'll be
the same thing all over again.

mjr.
----
PS
	[...]
>But being experienced in such a process I realize some will attack me
>and even go to the extreme of offending me.  Until this is over if this
>happens too much an individual may find themselves sitting in a court
room
>explaining to a judge why they felt they had the right to defame or
>abuse the rights of Jim Bound as an individual in a public forum.  And I
>have a set of family and many friends connected to the legal profession
>who will do this for me for free for the right reasons.  So please don't
>push it if your in the U.S. anywhere.

	I think this kind of stuff is out of line and if you have a
personal problem with someone on the list keep it personal rather than
cluttering the airwaves.

--- End of forwarded mail from "Marcus J. Ranum" <mjr@tis.com>