[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: new draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp?
FYI: <draft-ietf-ipsec-isakmp-cfg-01.txt> defines a mechanism for
exchanging this type of information without defining a new payloda and
its values can be any length, not just 96 bits.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel Harkins [SMTP:dharkins@cisco.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 1998 2:24 AM
>To: Michael C. Richardson
>Cc: wdm@epoch.ncsc.mil; ipsec@tis.com
>Subject: 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.
>
Follow-Ups: