Hi Yoav,
as a coauthor on one of these documents, I find your proposal below
positively insulting. There were three author teams, and you should give
them credit for having rational reasons for publishing these documents
and moving them through the IETF progress.
Rolling a dice is a lazy solution that wouldn't result in an outcome we
can justify. OTOH, an open cryptographic review of the three options
most certainly would. Until such a process takes place, I would rather
we have three Experimental protocols.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 08/03/2011 05:00 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On 8/3/11 4:55 PM, "Tero Kivinen"<[email protected]> wrote:
Yoav Nir writes:
There is no such consensus that protocol variants are a good thing.
I think it's just the opposite. Although I don't think it's Tero's
job to stop the publication of three documents that are "for the
same thing". That should be done by the community.
I am most definately not trying to stop any of the documents.
I am trying to make sure that the documents can go forward and get
IANA allocations done in a nice and consistent way, which will also
make it easier for implementors to implement one or multiple of those
methods.
Fully agree. But I also think that it *is* up to the community to stop
these three from moving on, and choose only one of them instead.
Since we haven't found any expert who will say that one is definitely
better than the others, almost any selection method will do.
Sean and Paul rolling a big fuzzy die at the SAAG meeting in Tai-Pei is
one good way to do this.
Yoav
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
