RE: SA, Proposal and Transform payloads

[Roy Pereira <rpereira@TimeStep.com>]

Douglas,

I do believe that we should alter the language to state that the
Proposal and Transform payloads are not at the 'same level' as other
payloads.

I do agree that we should try and generalize structures to keep
processing overhead down in our code, but I still find the "Transform"
Next Payload field redundant, since we have a 'number of transforms'
field in the Proposal payload.  Being able to process the transforms by
using two different fields is dangerous.

If we don't have a "number of proposals" field, then perhaps we
shouldn't have a "number of transforms" field as well, since we can find
this information out by using the Next Payload field in the Transform
payload.

I'd just like to see more conformity with the ISAKMP structures and I
think that v6 goes a long way to doing this, but it isn't perfect.

>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Re[2]: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
• Next by Date: Re: AH (without ESP) on a secure gateway
• Prev by thread: Re: SA, Proposal and Transform payloads
• Next by thread: No Subject
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread