[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: transform tunnel/transport attributes
Sorry for any confusion surrounding my various posts on Friday. There is
quite a lag between when messages are posted to the ipsec list and when
I receive them (sometimes), and I was receiving messages from may hours
prior right after each post which, had I received them sooner, would
have modified my thinking.
I guess my take on this after reading the various follow-ups is this:
for the reasons Dan cited (same IDcx for all proposals), we need the IKE
convention which Dan and others have already implemented, i.e. calling
both transforms 'tunnel-mode' even though we know this is semantically
incorrect. Rough consensus and running code, I believe the doc says...
I also agree that language clearing up any misunderstandings might be
useful, and that such language has already been proposed.
I think there are couple of important things to note: this does not
represent an architectural change, and does not violate the architecture
doc in any way I can see. This amounts to adoption of an IKE convention
which simplifies our lives a bit.
Scott