Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard

To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb at clark.net>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at research.att.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf at htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:53:23 -0800
Cc: ietf at ns.ietf.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 01:51:52 -0500
In-reply-to: <v03007810b146a7d734b5@[142.154.136.3]>
References: <199803311741.MAA18537@smb.research.att.com>

At 02:10 PM 3/31/98 -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>Your comments are along the lines of what I feel needs to be in the
>document or referenced by it.  Like it or not, there are many users that
>want to be able to point to language "in an RFC."  Just stating the
>architectural alternatives may not be enough for nonspecialists.  The
>language below on tradeoffs is necessary to help IPsec deployment.

Howard, this will be a book that someone will make some money off of.

References:
- Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
  - From: Steven M. Bellovin
- Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
  - From: Howard C. Berkowitz

Prev by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
Next by Date: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
Next by thread: Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Last Call: Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol to Proposed Standard

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.