Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality

[Ran Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> Bill Simpson wrote:

>    Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:29:13 -0800
>    Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>
>    5) Section 2.11 of draft-ietf-ipsec-photuris-ext-01.txt MUST be deleted.
>       It is WAY outside the scope of Bill's draft to modify any standards
>       track protocol and the attempt to do so is more than sufficient grounds
>       to bar publication as ANY kind of RFC until that section is deleted.
>
>So, the chairs are rather vehemently against adding replay protection,
>even as a negotiated option.

Bill,

  Not true.  The chairs are opposed to a key management protocol changing
the specification of material that is outside the scope of that key
management protocol specification.  Any attempt by any key management
specification to change the specifications contained in RFC-1825 thru
RFC-1827 is out of order.  Key management proposals MUST conform with
RFC-1825 through RFC-1827 and MUST NOT alter those specifications.

  Changes to RFC-1825 through RFC-1827 may be made only by the working
group as a whole.  If such changes are to be made, they will be reflected
in the revisions of RFC-1825 through RFC-1829 (which I will prepare in I-D
form presently).  If replay protection is added, then the key management
proposals can be modified to reflect that change afterwards.

Ran
[e-mail]