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

Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]

To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
Subject: Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:44:18 -0400
Cc: Steve Deering <deering@cisco.com>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>, Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>, jis@MIT.EDU, ipsec@tis.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
In-Reply-To: <199805041609.QAA19272@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
References: Your message of "Mon, 4 May 1998 11:41:27 -0400 ." <v03110704b17391b0c529@[128.33.238.32]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Bill,


>However, the fact that the host implementation is in two pieces allows
>for the possibility that the "real host" can generate extension
>headers which the "bump" doesn't know about.  Actually, given modular
>software components, the same thing can happen within a single host
>implementation.
>
>>From an engineering point of view, I think there should clearly be a
>specified behavior in the presence of unknown extension headers..

Good point.

Steve

References:

Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification,etc.]

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]

From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>

Prev by Date: RESPONDER_LIFETIME message format query
Next by Date: RE: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, e tc.]
Prev by thread: Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Next by thread: Re: (IPng 5759) Re: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread