Subject: Re: [IPSECKEY] new revision of draft

From: Sam Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:45:16 -0400 (EDT)

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
>     Sam> Section 2.4: Needs to have generic text for any value, then the
>     Sam> expansion for RSA and maybe mention the DSA doc, but not in it's own
>     Sam> subsection.
> 
>   I don't understand how what is there is wrong.

This is now 2.6/2.7.  The new section 2.3 isn't clear on how (or if) 
IPSECKEY automatically incorporates newly defined public key formats.
This needs to be clarified. 

2.6 Should have generic text specifying how any key format is included,
with RSA and DSA given as examples, assuming that we want this to be
extensible.  If we want to limit it to RSA/DSA, that should be made more
explicit.

-- Sam

-
This is the [email-masked] list.
Email to [email-masked] to be removed.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:18:42 -0400

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Weiler <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> I don't understand how what is there is wrong.

    Sam> This is now 2.6/2.7.  The new section 2.3 isn't clear on how (or if) 
    Sam> IPSECKEY automatically incorporates newly defined public key formats.
    Sam> This needs to be clarified. 

  okay.
  I'd say that if DNSEXT defines a new key format that it should be 
permissible to use it. Can you suggest text to this effect?

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-
This is the [email-masked] list.
Email to [email-masked] to be removed.