[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: Rodney Thayer <rodney@tillerman.nu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:24:00 -0700
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: <199809181525.IAA06096@chip.cisco.com>
References: <Your message of "Fri, 18 Sep 1998 06:47:08 PDT." <199809181248.IAA07227@2gn.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

At 08:25 AM 9/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>But do the IDs that are used to express our desires need to be encoded
>in a certificate? 

No but we need to describe in the documentation the algorithm that allows 
you to figure out which cert to use based on phase one ID, right?

If the Phase I ID changes (wrt IP addresses) then the statement I wrote
that the IP address represents exactly one IPv4 address becomes incorrect
and I need to change my draft.

Also, is it true that we expect one certificate to represent exactly one
IKE entity? 

[and yes I was serious about labels, but there's not enough room in that
rat hole for all of us so I'll sit back and watch the rest of you.]

References:

Re: issues with IKE that need resolution

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Network World article on IPSec
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