No Subject

smap (V3.1.1)
	id xma025630; Thu, 15 Aug 96 11:55:34 -0400
Received: by pilot.firewall.is.chrysler.com; id LAA12853; Thu, 15 Aug 1996
11:56:05 -0400
Received: from mhbclpr2-le0.is.chrysler.com(172.29.128.206) by
pilot.is.chrysler.com via smap (g3.0.1)
	id sma012841; Thu, 15 Aug 96 11:55:56 -0400
Received: from rgm3 (rgm3.is.chrysler.com [129.9.247.160]) by
mhbclpr2-nf0.is.chrysler.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA02738; Thu, 15
Aug 1996 11:48:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960815155349.00ca03ac@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
X-Sender: rgm3@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:53:49 -0400
To: "Mark S. Schneider" <mss@tycho.ncsc.mil>, naganand@ftp.com
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@chrysler.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on ISAKMP/Oakley
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM, mss@tycho.ncsc.mil, wdm@tycho.ncsc.mil, 
    sjt@tycho.ncsc.mil, mjs@terisa.com
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

At 07:39 AM 8/12/96 EDT, Mark S. Schneider wrote:
>> From: Naganand Doraswamy <naganand@ftp.com>
>> 
>> These are mostly implemetation type comments:
>> 
>> 2.4.1. Security Association Payload
>>    Is the "Payload Length" field *really* supposed to be specified in
>>    four-octet units, or should it be in octets as all the other payloads
>>    are?
>> 
>
>  I believe it should be in octets.  It seems unlikely that a SA payload
>  will ever be large enough to require a length in 4-octet units.

IPv6 jumbograms?????

Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212

---

• Prev by Date: No Subject
• Next by Date: No Subject
• Prev by thread: No Subject
• Next by thread: No Subject
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread