[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed IPSEC changes/extensions
> Even if compression and replay prevention both require state, their state
> is separate from each other's state. Compression does not need to know
> anything about replay prevention's state to work. Why should they be
> defined in the protocol to be contained both in a single
> transformation?
Both replay prevention and stateful compression require sequence
numbering of some sort. Putting two sequence numbers which are
stepped identically in a packet is wasteful; it also *potentially*
increases the amount of predictable plaintext in a message (a concern
which Steve Bellovin has raised on at least one occasion)..
- Bill
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:02:53 -0500
From: Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>
Message-Id: <199611012102.QAA26649@earth.hpc.org>
To: kent@bbn.com
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM
In-reply-to: Yourmessage <v02130502ae9ff67db166@[128.89.0.110]>
Subject: Re: proposed IPSEC changes/extensions
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk
It's not good to see the design process driven by the perceived difficulty
of modifying an old base and the perceived difficulty of getting through
standards process.
Hilarie
References: