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

Re: replay field size

To: Robert Glenn <glenn@snad.ncsl.nist.gov>
Subject: Re: replay field size
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:29:20 -0500
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199702112043.PAA00838@sloth.ncsl.nist.gov>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Rob,

	The field has been proposed as an option, not a requirement (though
compliant implementations would be required to support generation and
processing of the option.  As you observe, to simplify the alignment issue,
one could always include the field even if it were not processed, at the
expense of 4 or 8 bytes.

	The question of when to rekey really is independent of the counter
size, except in so far as it not being larger than the counter space.  So,
I'd tend to keep these concepts separate as much as possible.

Steve

Follow-Ups:

Re: replay field size

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

References:

Re: replay field size

From: Robert Glenn <glenn@snad.ncsl.nist.gov>

Prev by Date: Re: "Transforms" per se going away?
Next by Date: Re: replay field size straw poll
Prev by thread: Re: replay field size
Next by thread: Re: replay field size
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread