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

Re: confusion about identity

To: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: confusion about identity
From: "Derrell D. Piper" <ddp@network-alchemy.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:23:20 -0800
cc: hugh@mimosa.com ("D. Hugh Redelmeier"), ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:16:36 PST." <199802121816.KAA20355@dharkins-ss20.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

>Now what do we put in these fields then? The DOI of an SA offer in phase I 
>is either IPSec DOI or zero. If it's IPSec DOI then the port and protocol 
>have relevance and I don't see why someone who wants to can't put UDP port 
>500 in there. If it's DOI of zero then the semantics of the ID payload are
>that of the base ISAKMP draft (which, it was noted at the document reading
>party, does not define any ID types, that should be taken care of in the
>next round of edits) and then the port and protocol really must be RESERVED
>or zero.

I'd forgotten you added that new blurb in the IO Resolution.

Okay, I'll leave it as is.

Derrell

References:

Re: confusion about identity

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: confusion about identity
Next by Date: Re: confusion about identity
Prev by thread: Re: confusion about identity
Next by thread: Re: confusion about identity
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread