[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp?
Michael,
> Here is my original text. If anyone wants me to post the discussion
> that ensued, I will do that, assuming that the parties involved don't
> object. Word smithing welcome.
I don't object if you feel it is necessary.
> To: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>,
> wdm@epoch.ncsc.mil (W. Douglas Maughan)
> CC: ylo@ssh.fi, piper@cisco.com, mjs@terisa.com, mss@tycho.ncsc.mil,
> tmo@ssh.fi, kivinen@ssh.fi
> Subject: Re: vendor id in isakmp
> In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:37:42 PDT."
> <199710122137.OAA24282@dharkins-ss20>
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:47:05 -0400
> From: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@istari.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
[snip]
> If Vendor ID(s) are sent, they MUST be sent during the Phase I
> exchange. [comment please! MCR]
>
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> ! Next Payload ! RESERVED ! Payload Length !
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> ! !
> ! VENDOR ID: 96 bits !
> ! !
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Does this have to be 96bits? Since a payload length is included can't this
just be an opaque blob whose length is determined by the payload length
field?
Dan.
References: