[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sensitivity Labels

To: Howard Weiss <hsw@columbia.sparta.com>
Subject: Re: Sensitivity Labels
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:10:16 -0500
Cc: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>, ipsec@TIS.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:26:14 EST." <9602262226.AA09481@katahdin.columbia.sparta.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Sender: ipsec-request@neptune.tis.com

Howard Weiss writes:
> > Moreover, these are examples of facilities for "explicit" labels, rather
> > than "implicit" labels (indicated per SPI) used for IP Security.
> 
> But why should "explict" labels be precluded?  There are times when
> they are explicitly needed (see below).

The explicit labels are not precluded. They are handled automatically
by the IPsec layer -- if a packet has a security label, it is
preserved and handled just fine. We are talking about the key
management layer, is not responsible for per packet explicit labeling,
only implicit labeling of the SPI.

Perry

References:

Re: Sensitivity Labels

From: Howard Weiss <hsw@columbia.sparta.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Sensitivity Labels
Next by Date: Censure of Mr. Simpson
Prev by thread: Re: Sensitivity Labels
Next by thread: Re: Sensitivity Labels
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread