Re: help, I need info

rls@neptune.att.com Mon, 13 April 1992 14:59 UTC

Message-Id: <9204131415.AA27749@wdl1.wdl.loral.com>
From: rls@neptune.att.com
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:09:00 -0400
To: att!EBay.Sun.COM!Gary.Winiger@neptune.att.com
Subject: Re: help, I need info
Cc: att!wdl1.wdl.loral.com!tsig@neptune.att.com
Sender: tsig-request@wdl1.wdl.loral.com

==================================================================
>>> Submissions to the tsig list: tsig@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
>>> Additions/deletions/questions: tsig-request@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
>>> Archive Server: listserv@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
==================================================================

Thanks Gary for the complete history.  I have referenced you and SUN as the
originators of CIPSO severals times, but I did not know the other names of
the people involved.  I did not relize CIPSO was that old.  Boy, we got to
get this thing to a full standard.  I have been pushing as hard as possible.
I hope this meeting will help some people see the light.  Thanks for the
input.

Just for clarification.  Only Tags 1, 2, and 5 went in the CIPSO RFC.  We 
did not feel that tags 3 and 4 would make it through the IETF since they
carry info not required by routers.  Of course that is a subjective 
argument and one I do not want to continue at this time.  However, the
minimal requirement that a vendor's implementation must satisfy is being
able to send and receive tag type 1.  I believe MAXSIX 1.0 did not support
tag type 1 and was not technically CIPSO, however MAXSIX 2.x does support
tag type 1 and as long as it meets the few other minimum requirements then
it can be called CIPSO.  I only say this so that there is a clear understanding
by customers of what is CIPSO for interoperability purposes.  We currently
have two versions of CIPSO that are not interoperable.  Of course, this will
happen with an evolving standard.  Version 1.0 is preIETF and 2.0 is what
was accepted as an IETF Internet Draft.  Most (if not all) CIPSO vendors are
upgrading to 2.0 this year.

Thanks again for your input it will help a lot for the meeting.

Ron Sharp