cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-11-18 - Re: I-D ACTION:draft-atkinson-ipng-auth-00.txt

Header Data

From: Bob Snyder <snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: c1b98c219cdf93a738f8cfd26423246a6f198955a83bb6042ec36653333a843e
Message ID: <199411182152.QAA08885@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
Reply To: <9411182044.AA12940@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-18 21:54:54 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 13:54:54 PST

Raw message

From: Bob Snyder <snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 13:54:54 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-atkinson-ipng-auth-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <9411182044.AA12940@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199411182152.QAA08885@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Perry E. Metzger scribbles:

> Some of us are participants in the IETF, are even on the IPSEC working
> group, and are well aware of the pending work on IPng and IPv4
> security, and don't want Yet Another Copy of these things. If you
> insist, why not just note that there are drafts pending and not
> forward each of the announcement messages?

Because many, probably most of us aren't participants, and these items
are of greater cryptological relavence than much, if not most, of the
material on the list.

How would a note about the drafts being pending and the posting of the
announcement be significantly different?  I appreciate the MIME
encoding of the mail, since my MIME mail reader can go out and pull
them for me.

Bob

Thread