[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Commit Bit Processing
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:55:09 EST Tim Jenkins wrote
>
> I agree that there's much confusion with this bit. (I would argue
> that reflecting back the commit bit is wrong, since it implies the
> initiator also wants to send a CONNECTED notification.)
>
> I'll be releasing an update to the re-keying document within a week,
> and the commit bit gets a fair amount of discussion in this document.
A couple of IETFs ago I presented a list of the ambiguities and issues
associated with IKE/ISAKMP/DOI and the commit bit was one of them. It
seemed to me that the general consensus was that:
o the commit bit made sense only in Quick Mode.
o using the commit bit only extends Quick Mode by one message--
from the responder back to the initiator.
o that it is sent as part of the Quick Mode and not as a
separate Informational exchange.
Is this not acceptable? Do we want to revisit the commit bit again?
If there are other issues that need to be addressed lemme know and
I'll add them to http://www.lounge.org/ike_doi_errata.html.
I guess if the authors of the problematic RFCs would get off their
duffs-- myself included-- and come out with a draft to depricate the
RFC then we could put these issues to rest. It would be nice to get
some closure in Oslo.
Dan.
References: