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

[Fwd: Re: Calling the question: derived vs. explicit IV]

Scott G. Kelly wrote:
> 
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> 
> <snip...>
> 
> > >> "DOI" is an ISAKMP term.
> > >
> > >Agreed. I should never have said it was an 'IPsec term'. What I should
> > >have said it this: even though DOI is rightly occurs in the ISAKMP
> > >context, it refers to SA's, i.e. 'domain of interpretation' w.r.t. the
> > >SA begin defined. Hence, DOI is not irrelevant to manual SA
> > >configuration.
> >
> > The ISAKMP/Oakley DOI for IPsec is irrelevant wrt to manual SA
> > configuration.  It least in my reading of it.
> >
> 
> I'm becoming more confused now. The 'ISAKMP/Oakley DOI for IPsec'? The
> only DOI I am currently aware of is the IP DOI for ISAKMP. Here's the
> relevant text from draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-02.txt:
> 
>    Within ISAKMP, a Domain of Interpretation is used to group related
>    protocols using ISAKMP to negotiate security associations.  Security
>    protocols sharing a DOI choose security protocol and cryptographic
>    transforms from a common namespace and share key exchange protocol
> 
> As Ran correctly pointed out (I think), DOI is an ISAKMP term. As I've
> said in earlier posts, my bandwidth is limited; I haven't read all the
> drafts, and I don't remember all the details in the ones I have read.
> Are there drafts I should read which would straighten out my
> misconceptions here?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott