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

Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]

To: Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 07:46:34 +1000
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, jis@MIT.EDU, ipsec@tis.com, ipng@sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM
In-Reply-To: Thomas Narten's message of "Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:12:27 -0400."
References: <199804301512.LAA20002@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

    Date:        Thu, 30 Apr 1998 11:12:27 -0400
    From:        Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>
    Message-ID:  <199804301512.LAA20002@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>

I just want to pick a piece out of the quoted text...

  | Let me back up a little and clarify the point that caught my
  | attention. draft-ietf-ipsec-auth-header-05.txt says:
  | 
  | >>>    If the IPsec implementation encounters an
  | >>>    extension header that it does not recognize, it MUST zero the whole
  | >>>    header except for the Next Header and Hdr Ext Len fields.

To me, that reads like nonsense.   If the implementation doesn't recognise
the header, what would be the basis upon which it would locate the Next Header
or Hdr Ext len fields?    Is there some (incorrect) implicit assumption here
that all headers for all time will have such fields, and that they'll always
be in the same place?

kre

Prev by Date: Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Next by Date: Re: (IPng 5744) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Prev by thread: RE: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Next by thread: Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread