how bad is IPETEE?

[Nicolas Williams]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:31:12PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "Eugen" == Eugen Leitl <eugen at 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 at metzdowd.com