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

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 16:06:04 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: kent's message of Tue, 13 May 1997 21:05:41 -0400. <v0300780aaf93d9d373f4@[128.89.30.17]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> 	- The optional IV field will be removed; if an encryption algorithm
> requires an IV, it will be transmitted as the initial portion of the
> ciphertext payload.

This makes sense and only impacts document modularity, not
interoperability.  I strongly support this proposal.

> Finally, in talking with a couple of active contributors, I've gotten the
> impression that there is support for encryptionless ESP, as defined in the
> current I-D.  

I'm mildly opposed to this, on the grounds that it complicates an
authentication-only ipsec implementation.

					- Bill

Follow-Ups:

Re: ESP revisions straw poll

From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@watson.ibm.com>

References:

ESP revisions straw poll

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by Date: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-new-auth-00.txt
Prev by thread: ESP revisions straw poll
Next by thread: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread