Subject: Re: IP Tunneling I think ?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/27/1999 02:14:42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Metz <email@example.com> writes:
Craig> They appear to be building a real and standards-compliant
Craig> version of IPsec. On multiple occasions, they whined
Craig> loudly and tried to get features removed from IPsec because
Craig> they didn't feel like implementing them. Traffic analysis
Which isn't to say that they won't go ahead and fail to implement
them *in the release* -- they also wanted to use reserved fields to
indicate a different RSA signature format instead of creating a new
Craig> on features that Microsoft wanted to remove from the specs
Craig> might give you some ideas as to what is minimally
Craig> implemented and what's more useable.
searchable at http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ipsec/ [updated to Jan 1. yesterday]
Also the VPN consortium recently announced another archive.
But, we need to put put IPsec into an international NetBSD... which
reminds that I was supposed to talk to Craig about the merging efforts.
] Have encryption. Will travel. |1 Fish/2 Fish[
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |Red F./Blow F[
] firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |strong crypto[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----