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

Re: forward progress on IPSec AH

Ted,

>>I think part of the confusion is caused by rather confusing terminology.
>>There are Extensions (which are sometimes called options, I think
>>incorrectly), as well as sets of individual options (taken from a
>>different number space than the Extension headers) for the Hop by Hop
>>and Destination options Extensions.  As near as I can tell, calling the
>>other extension headers "options" is a misnomer.  Some extension headers
>>are _optional_, but they should not be called _options_.

        :-) We mentioned this possible source of confusion in our
        message to you re: Thomas Narten's comments.  

>>Some of this confusion is in the AH spec, but I've seen it in other
>>places as well.  I think we will eventually want to clean up the text,
>>before we go to draft standard, but I don't think we necessarily need to
>>clear this up now.

        Hmmm...I thought we'd been pretty careful about this.  Please
        let me know where in the AH text we have confused extension
        headers with either options or extension headers containing
        options (Hop-by-Hop and Destination).  That should certainly get
        fixed.

        The above question is not aimed at your statement...

          "... since there's no good way to determine where the next
          header and header length fields were.  (It would have been
          good if the location for next header and header-length were
          fixed for all non-terminal header, which apparently originally
          was a design goal, but several IPV6 folks have claimed that
          this is now a bad assumption to make.)"

        I understand your/other's point about this.

Thanks,
Karen
Follow-Ups: