[127818] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: how bad is IPETEE?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Thu Jul 10 16:44:58 2008
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:26:06 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Cc: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>,
Cryptography List <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3lk09fv5k.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:31:12PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "Eugen" == Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> writes:
>
> Eugen> I'm not sure what the status of http://postel.org/anonsec/
>
> The IETF just created a new list and subscribed all anonsec subscribers:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/btns
Indeed. But it's as quiet as the old list :/
Seriously, the work of the BTNS WG is, IMO, crucial to the use of IPsec
as an end-to-end solution (as opposed to as a VPN solution, for which
IPsec is already pretty darned good). If you care, then please
participate, or even better, implement.
That anyone is working on IPETEE indicates that end-to-end IPsec
solutions are desired. The in-band nature of the IPETEE key exchange
indicates, to me, a dislike of IKE, or perhaps unawareness of BTNS WG
(man, the WG's name doesn't reflect very well what it does), or perhaps
a misunderstanding of IPsec.
Nico
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
