Re: More inadequacies in draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-03.txt...

Daniel Harkins <> Fri, 12 September 1997 19:28 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.8.2/8.8.2) id PAA09509 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199709121937.MAA28053@dharkins-ss20>
X-Authentication-Warning: Host didn't use HELO protocol
To: ben@Ascend.COM
Cc: Roy Shamir <roy@CheckPoint.COM>,
Subject: Re: More inadequacies in draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-03.txt...
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:24:50 EDT." <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:37:41 -0700
From: Daniel Harkins <>
Precedence: bulk

  We? Is that the royal, the medical, or the law enforcement "we"?

  If you have any constructive suggestions then out with them. Point
out the self-contradictions, or how you view it as inadequate, suggest
replacement text and then "we" can get these drafts out. 

  I'm all in favor of pouring the concrete. Sooner the better.


> Well, looks like I'll be joining the minority in doing so...
> What I really _meant_ to ask is whether anyone was able to make an
> implementation without assistance apart from the drafts (reference
> implementation was the first thought -- mailing list is the second).
> And, its not really a valid question, because I'm almost certain that
> the answer is going to be 'no'.  If we're trying to get these drafts
> ready in any reasonable amount of time, something really needs to be
> done now to eliminate the inadequacies and self-contradictions within
> them.