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

Re: Non-IP type Client IDs

To: Stephen Kent <kent@po1.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Non-IP type Client IDs
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 12:29:45 -0400
cc: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: Message from Stephen Kent <kent@po1.bbn.com> of "Tue, 05 Oct 1999 06:00:37 EDT." <v04020a06b41f7c1a6c3b@[128.33.238.129]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> What do other folks think is appropriate re adding additional details?

Mentioning "temporary" SPD's as one legitimate implementation strategy
sounds like the way to go here..

Specifying that the stack has to behave *as if* a temporary SPD entry
had been added might also be appropriate.

						- Bill

Prev by Date: RE: monitoring anti-replay detection in AH and ESP
Next by Date: RE: reliable notify question
Prev by thread: Re: Non-IP type Client IDs
Next by thread: Using Certificates to Auth Diffie Helman Key Exhange
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread