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

Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway

To: rja@cisco.com (Ran Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:17:12 -0500 (EST)
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199612041911.LAA02222@cornpuffs.cisco.com> from "Ran Atkinson" at Dec 4, 96 11:11:35 am
Reply-To: uri@watson.ibm.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Ran Atkinson says:
> I believe that ESP should continue to always imply that encryption is
> in use.  The presence/absence of encryption is the primary reason that AH is
> separate from ESP..................Comments ?

I support your position.
-- 
Regards,
Uri		uri@watson.ibm.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<Disclaimer>

References:

Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ISAKMP DELETE payload
Next by Date: SA, Proposal and Transform payloads
Prev by thread: Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Next by thread: Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread