Re: ESP/AH draft comments

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

Cheryl,

In looking back on your comments, I realize that my response to one of them
was based on a misreading of the text.  You said:

>ESP
>
>2. Section 2.1: I've always found it easier to state that an SPI is
>uniquely identified by the tuple (dest addr, security prot, spi).
>
 I read this to be "an SA is uniquely identified by ..." even though you
wrote "an SPI is uniquely identified by ..."  The former is a nice concise
way to express the way we identify an SA, the latter is odd as it states
that a value is uniquely identified by a triple consisting of that value
plus two others.  We'll reword the section in question, but it won't use
the exact terminology you suggested.

Steve

---

References:

• ESP/AH draft comments
• From: Cheryl Madson <cmadson@cisco.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: manual keying and IPSEC conformance
• Next by Date: Re: IPSEC and NAT
• Prev by thread: Re: ESP/AH draft comments
• Next by thread: SAs and SPIs
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread