Re: how bad is IPETEE?

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