[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
More inadequacies in draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-03.txt...
There is an implementation survey which, among other things, discusss
geneology of ISAKMP implementations. Based on conversations with several
vendors, I don't think everyone is using the reference implementation as a
base.
The site we had arranged to use for the survey is no longer available, I am
working with the WG chairs to find another site.
>Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:14:16 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Ben Rogers <ben@Ascend.COM>
>To: ipsec@tis.com
>Subject: More inadequacies in draft-ietf-ipsec-ipsec-doi-03.txt...
>Reply-To: ben@Ascend.COM (Ben Rogers)
>Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
>
>
>>From draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-08.txt:
>
> 2.1 ISAKMP Terminology
>
> ...
>
> Security Parameter Index (SPI) An identifier for a Security Assocation,
> relative to some security protocol. Each security protocol has its own
> ``SPI-space''. A (security protocol, SPI) pair may uniquely identify an
> SA. The uniqueness of the SPI is implementation dependent, but could be
> based per system, per protocol, or other options. Depending on the DOI,
> additional information (e.g. host address) may be necessary to identify
> an SA. The DOI will also determine which SPIs (i.e. initiator's or re-
> sponder's) are sent during communication.
>
>Curiously the DOI does not define this.
>
>Has anyone been able to produce interoperable code without using the
>reference implementation?
>
>
>ben
>
>
>
>
>