SKIP in IPSEC: is it really simple?
HUGO@watson.ibm.com Thu, 12 September 1996 18:53 UTC
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa28434; 12 Sep 96 14:53 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id OAA19703; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:57:19 -0400
From: HUGO@watson.ibm.com
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at neptune.TIS.COM
Received: from sol.hq.tis.com(10.33.1.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma019696; Thu, 12 Sep 96 14:56:52 -0400
Received: from relay.hq.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA00760; Thu, 12 Sep 96 14:56:01 EDT
Received: by relay.hq.tis.com; id OAA19688; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:56:49 -0400
Received: from igw2.watson.ibm.com(129.34.139.6) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma019682; Thu, 12 Sep 96 14:56:46 -0400
Received: from mailhub1.watson.ibm.com (mailhub1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.249.31]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.7.4/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA96341; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:56:49 -0400
Received: from yktvmv.watson.ibm.com (yktvmv.watson.ibm.com [9.117.33.29]) by mailhub1.watson.ibm.com (8.7.1/09-08-96) with SMTP id OAA648240; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:55:11 -0400
Message-Id: <199609121855.OAA648240@mailhub1.watson.ibm.com>
Received: from YKTVMV by yktvmv.watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9137; Thu, 12 Sep 96 14:55:09 EDT
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:52:47 -0400
To: caronni@tik.ee.ethz.ch, rgm3@chrysler.com
Cc: skrenta@osmosys.incog.com, ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: SKIP in IPSEC: is it really simple?
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
Ref: Your note of Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:03:02 +0200 (MET DST) > how do you plan to handle certificate expiry without shared time? time for certificate expiration and time for freshness/anti-reply in key exchange protocols are two very different issues. The need for the first doesn't justify its use when generating fresh session keys. Hugo