Agreed. Summarizes my opinion too. Panos
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Harkins Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 11:23 AM To: Tero Kivinen Cc: [email protected]; Bhatia,Manav (Manav) Subject: Re: [IPsec] Avoiding Authentication Header (AH) On Thu, January 5, 2012 6:23 am, Tero Kivinen wrote: > Bhatia, Manav (Manav) writes: [snip] >> If a WG ends up mandating AH (when ESP could have been used) then >> Yes it's a problem for everyone, right from the vendors to the >> users, who have to now support AH too in their products and >> networks. > > If WG wants to mandate AH, and we cannot convince them otherwise, > having a document which says so does not help. On the other hand if we > have stealth WG trying to sneak AH past IPsec community, I think they > will also conviently ignore this document too. > > In summary I do not think there is problem, and I do not think we need > to say anything about AH right now. Indeed! I agree 100%. Me too. +1. Etc. Dan. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
