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

Re: Derived versus Explicit IV

To: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney@sabletech.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:26:03 -0400
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <97Jul23.103947edt.11655@janus.tor.securecomputing.com>
References: <Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:22:51 -0400". <6314.wsimpson@greendragon.com><6314.wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Why?  No new number was demanded for the HMAC variants of AH and that's not
wire-compatible with 1827.  It was my understanding that it was considered
a *feature* that you couldn't tell what protocol it was by looking at the
protocol number.

Not that I liked that, but I was told that was what people wanted.

At 10:44 AM 7/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>If the new ESP plus new mandatory to implement transforms are *not*
>backwards compatible *ON THE WIRE*, then a new IP protocol value for ESP
>will be required.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Derived versus Explicit IV

From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>

References:

Derived versus Explicit IV

From: "William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>

Re: Derived versus Explicit IV

From: "C. Harald Koch" <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>

Prev by Date: RE: Derived versus Explicit IV
Next by Date: Re: Re[6]: ISAKMP performance
Prev by thread: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Next by thread: Re: Derived versus Explicit IV
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread