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

Re: Agenda stuff

To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: Agenda stuff
From: Tamir Zegman <zegman@checkpoint.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 08:14:21 -0500
CC: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@ssh.fi>
Organization: Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
References: <4.1.19981127123012.00b9eef0@homebase.htt-consult.com> <199812020013.QAA28477@chip.cisco.com> <199812031546.RAA06867@torni.ssh.fi> <366A399B.CA656A5A@checkpoint.com> <199812072118.XAA00057@torni.ssh.fi>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com



Tero Kivinen wrote:

> > Some proposed to put in the proposal that failed the negotiation, we
> > proposed to put in an ASCII string. I think the first option is not
> > generic enough since it can be used only with regard to failing in
> > selecting an appropriate proposal. Comments?
>
> I would like to see that the notification data is always list of
> attributes. This way we can easily add stuff later when we want to add
> more things. Currently the RESPONDER-LIFETIME already uses that. In
> that case we could have new attribute type numbers like:
>
>         Failing SA proposal                             256
>         Error message text (default: UTF-8, english)    257
>         ...
>
> And then I can include list of two attributes to the notification,
> one containing the failing SA proposal, and the second onme includes
> the error message text, saying something like "Phase I proposal
> rejected because of policy required 3DES encryption, and no proposal
> matching that was found".

I agree.

References:

Re: Agenda stuff

From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>

Re: Agenda stuff

From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@ssh.fi>

Re: Agenda stuff

From: Tamir Zegman <zegman@checkpoint.com>

Re: Agenda stuff

From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@ssh.fi>

Prev by Date: Agenda
Next by Date: Authentication Header
Prev by thread: Re: Agenda stuff
Next by thread: Re: Agenda stuff
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread