Re: [Ipsec] draft-solinas-ui-suites-00.txt

At 10:32 AM +0200 12/17/06, Yoav Nir wrote:
>I think that in RFC 4308 they intentionally used names that do not 
>name specific algorithms. This is for having a uniform name across 
>VPN devices and to allow users with no background in cryptography 
>(and those who don't read the IPsec list) to configure VPN devices 
>without confusing terms.  That's why the names defined there are 
>VPN-A and VPN-B.
>
>I suggest that "Suite-B-GCM-128" goes against that.  I think better 
>names would be VPN-C, VPN-D etc.

I disagree here. The names are not important as long as there is no 
obvious clash. As the draft shows, the name "Suite B" is already in 
widespread use within the community of interest, as well as with 
IPsec vendors who want to participate in that community in the future.

>If it's really important to include the SuiteB name, I'd still go 
>with SuiteB-1, SuiteB-2 etc.

I disagree again. It is up to the community to decide how much or 
little specificity should be included in the names. When we came up 
with VPN-A and VPN-B, that's what the general IPsec population of the 
time wanted, although we could have chosen VPN-TripleDES and 
VPN-AES12 or somesuch.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec