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

Re: issues with IKE that need resolution

To: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
From: "Derrell D. Piper" <ddp@network-alchemy.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:03:54 -0700
cc: Shawn_Mamros@BayNetworks.COM (Shawn Mamros), ipsec@tis.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:43:45 PDT." <199809171543.IAA25977@chip.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

> Yes, that's right. Do you think it should contain the nonces?

I don't think it's necessary in this case.

I'd prefer that it be the same computation as a regular notify/delete hash
(i.e. prf(SKEYID_a, M-ID | Notify)).

Derrell

References:

Re: issues with IKE that need resolution

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: ike source port (was: issues with IKE that need resolution)
Next by Date: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
Prev by thread: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
Next by thread: Re: issues with IKE that need resolution
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread