Re: Sufficient Energy to finish KINK--comments by 2005-01-06

On Dec 16, 2004, at 22:55, Nobuo OKABE wrote:
> FYI
>
> Some people outside IETF are also interested in KINK.
>
>    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art034.html
>
> So I believe KINK is important for industrial area
> where there are a lot of low-end devices
> mentioned by Kamada-san.

Thanks for that pointer, I hadn't seen that before.

Looks like they're recommending Kerberos as one of their options, 
though their complaints about it include: still uses DES (being 
addressed); no role-based authorization; hard to set up and administer.

> From: "KAMADA Ken'ichi" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Sufficient Energy to finish KINK--comments by 2005-01-06
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:17:50 +0900
>> When this work is decided to go forward, I will commit my experiences
>> in implementing KINK to revising the draft.

That's great, thank you!

I also would like to see this work happen, but coming from the Kerberos 
side and not the IPsec world, I don't think I can be of the greatest 
help in implementing it.  I was trying to follow the WG discussions for 
a while, but as the general tendency seemed to be to explain some 
Kerberos bits and assume knowledge of IPsec, I got a bit lost...  I'm 
happy to help with the Kerberos aspects of the spec, though, and any 
problems with use of the MIT implementation, and I've started looking 
over the current draft again myself.

Ken