Subject: Straw poll, round 2

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:13:07 -0700

As discussed at the Minneapolis meeting, we need to take the straw 
poll again. My apologies for taking so long to get to it. We need to 
either choose between PIC and GetCert for the product of this Working 
Group, or to actively decide that the Working Group does not want to 
create a protocol.

For this straw poll, please respond to this message, and simply say 
"PIC" or "GetCert" or "No new protocol". If you wish, you can say 
why, but please state your preference first. Please respond within 
two weeks from today.

Note that this is a straw poll, not a "50%+1" straight vote. In the 
IETF tradition, the WG chairs will view the results and look for 
consensus. We (the chairs) will report back to the list soon after 
the two weeks are up.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:51:06 -0700 (PDT)

GetCert v2 (the new and improved version)

---

From: "Stephane Beaulieu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:49:20 -0400

No new protocol.

Reason: I'd prefer something that's easier to implement, and (more
importantly) easy to deploy.  If Hybrid or CRACK were candidates, I'd vote
for them.

Stephane.

---

From: "Scott Fanning" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:06:47 -0700

No new protocol.

Between L2TP, Hybrid, CRACK and the other "unnamed" methods, I think we can
solve this problem.

Scott

---

From: Will Price <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:00:50 -0700

No new protocol.

Agreed that adequate solutions to this problem set already exist.

-- 

Will Price, Director of Engineering
PGP Security, Inc.
a division of Network Associates, Inc.
Direct  (408)346-5906
Cell/VM (650)704-4461

---

From: Uri Blumenthal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:32:59 -0400

I prefer CRACK.
-- 
Regards,
Uri.
-=-=-<>-=-=-
<Disclaimer>

---

From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:02:44 -0400

In order of preference:

1. Hybrid
2. Crack
3. PIC
4. GetCert

Justification:

- PIC/GetCert address what I believe to be non-existant flaws in the
Hybrid/Crack approach.

- Hybrid and Crack are functionally equivalent, however Hybrid reuses code
that many IPsec implementers already have.

- PIC and GetCert are functionally similar, however I believe that PIC will
integrate into existing gateways better.

Andrew
-------------------------------------------
Upon closer inspection, I saw that the line
dividing black from white was in fact a shade
of grey. As I drew nearer still, the grey area
grew larger. And then I was enlightened.

---

From: "sankar ramamoorthi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:13:10 -0700

PIC

Better code reusability.

-- sankar --

---

From: Ricky Charlet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:34:14 -0600

Howdy,

	Count my vote with the leader, wether it is PIC or getCert (in case of
a tie I vote for PIC).

Justification:
	I am voting for resolution! Either PIC or getCert is fine with me. I
hope to increase the distinction in this straw poll by casting my vote
for the leading condender. And I call for anyone else who is fine with
either to vote as I do (to accentuate the strawpoll distinction).

	People, we have a crisis of non-consensus taking shape here. There are
two status quo solutions which are interoperable even though they are
non-standard. They are Hybrid and L2TP. Security concerns have been
raised with both of those status-quo solutions on this list before (and
refuted, and debated and...). The solution of modifying IKE (as with
CRACK) has been rejected by our ADs as introducing too much complexity
(and that has been debated at length on this list). We have in front of
us two new solutions which are acceptable to our ADs, have been viewed
as "doing the right thing" and are each poised to become a broadly
accepted standard. These are PIC and getCert.

	Our realistic choice is between three options, PIC, getCert or nothing
(=defacto current). I contend, that if you vote for something other than
PIC or getCert, you are voting for nothing. This may be a desireable
result for some and seems to be the leading contender so far in this
straw poll.

	So if you are a person who does want and IEFT/IPsec solution for legacy
remote authentication, it is very important that you cast your vote for
PIC or getCert or (as I have done) for the leader of the strawpoll, be
it either PIC or getCert. Otherwise, "nothing" will win. Also note that
if PIC and getCert tie, then "nothing" will probably win there too.

-- 
  Ricky Charlet   : Redcreek Communications   : usa (510) 795-6903

---

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:56:53 -0700

PIC

---

From: Ari Huttunen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:30:00 +0300

PIC

I think PIC has a better chance of quickly replacing X-Auth and Hybrid.

Ari

-- 
Ari Huttunen                   phone: +358 9 2520 0700
Software Architect             fax  : +358 9 2520 5001

F-Secure Corporation       http://www.F-Secure.com 

F-Secure products: Integrated Solutions for Enterprise Security
*
 F-Secure is moving. The new address as of 9 April 2001 is:
 F-Secure Corporation, PL 24, Tammasaarenkatu 7, FIN-00181 Helsinki Finland
 Phone +358 9 2520 0700 Fax +358 9 2520 5001
*