Re: The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.
Fri, 20 September 1996 12:02 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa24786; 20 Sep 96 8:02 EDT
Received: from neptune.hq.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09745; 20 Sep 96 8:02 EDT
Received: from neptune.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa21504; 20 Sep 96 7:31 EDT
Subject: Re: The WG's inability to choose is good in this case.
To: ipsec@tis.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:04:33 -0700
In-Reply-To: <199609191532.LAA567568@mailhub1.watson.ibm.com> from
Message-ID: <150853351007.30702.2250369269349979347.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>
"HUGO@watson.ibm.com" at Sep 19, 96 10:29:34 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP5] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com Precedence: bulk From: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com Message-ID: <9609200726.aa21498@neptune.TIS.COM> > One personal clarification regarding (2): in my opinion, there is a > strong technical basis to require key exchange/refreshment via authenticated > handshakes as supported by Oakley (even if in-line keying is also supported > by the protocol). Doesn't IBM have a patent on this? --tom