Re: [Isms] wg last call followup - sshtm

["tom.petch" <cfinss at dial.pipex.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wes Hardaker" <wjhns1 at hardakers.net>
To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz at cmu.edu>
Cc: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>; "'tom.petch'"
<cfinss at dial.pipex.com>; "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'"
<j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>; <isms at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: wg last call followup - sshtm


> >>>>> On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:25:52 -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>
said:
>
> JH> I'm still short on sleep, but this sounds sane to me, and I'm fairly
> JH> convinced there is not a problem -- as long as we believe it's OK that
> JH> the two parties to a transation might not use the same securityName.
>
> Which, I'll say again: we already agreed upon as a WG that it was OK.

Weell, I was asleep at the time:-(  I am confident that it was never called out
as an issue and rough consensus declared, that I would have noticed.  May be it
was at an IETF meeting, I am rarely at those.

Whatever, I am not against it, just need to clear we have rough consensus on it.
In which case, it demands a mention in the architecture, ie tmsm, since I expect
it to be a surprise to some users of this.

Tom Petch

> --
> Wes Hardaker
> Sparta, Inc.