Re: confusion about identity

[Lewis McCarthy <lmccarth@cs.umass.edu>]

D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> writes:
> draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-oakley-05.txt, section 5 "Exchanges" says the
> following (I quote a fair bit to give context, but you needn't read
> it to get my point):
[...elided...]
>    authenticate the exchange.  The entire ID payload (including ID type, 
>    port, and protocol but excluding the generic header) is hashed into 
>    both HASH_I and HASH_R.
> 
> The first word of the second last line is the only use of the word
> "port" in the document.  As such, it seems out of place.

I don't see your point here. Enumerating the fields of the ID payload
seems a good way to elaborate on the intended meaning of "entire ID
payload". "Port" is certainly an appropriate term to use to name one
of those fields. I fail to understand why the uniqueness of the word
in the document renders it "out of place".

-Lewis

---

References:

• confusion about identity
• From: hugh@mimosa.com ("D. Hugh Redelmeier")

---

• Prev by Date: confusion about identity
• Next by Date: Re: Generic CBC-MAC specification
• Prev by thread: confusion about identity
• Next by thread: Re: confusion about identity
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread