new AH spec

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

Folks,

	You will soon receive a new I-D for AH, that includes fixes for all
but one of the comments made after Memphis.  The differences between this
version and RFC 1826 are documented in a new section, so I won't bother
describing them here.  The one unresolved area has to do with AH placement
in IPv6 headers.  Dan  McDonald and Charlie Lynn differed a bit on the
wording of the text with regard to the semantics of destination options
appearing before or after AH.  I'm not sure how critical this residual
issue is, but my analysis of the messages suggests that we did not come to
a resolution.  I'd appreciate it is Charlie and Dan could come up with
wording that both are comfortable with, so that we can wrap up this spec.
A revsised version of ESP will follow next week.

As a reminder, I note that we began a few eeks ago by sending out the first
of a series of messages that address topics for inclusion in the Security
Architecture document.  The first message addressed PMTU processing and
elicited just a few responses, to which replies were sent.  In the interest
of resolving these issues so that implementors can proceed with confidence
in releasing compliant IPsec products, we need to make progress on these
topics as each is released (before we compose and distribute the Security
Architectuire I-D).  So, please go back and review the PMTU message, and
review and respond to subsequent messages that will be released soon.

Thanks,

Steve

---

• Prev by Date: Re: IPsec and Platonic Ideals®
• Next by Date: Re: ESP revisions straw poll
• Prev by thread: AH-Lite
• Next by thread: eliminate AH
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread