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

Re: ICMP{,v6} type/code as a selector...

To: Stephen Kent <kent@po1.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: ICMP{,v6} type/code as a selector...
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:56:21 -0700
CC: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <199910220609.XAA05952@kebe.Eng.Sun.COM> <v04020a03b43a1c9d0d66@[171.78.6.230]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Stephen Kent wrote:
> 
> I have no objection to adding selector support for ICMP, but let's not
> overload the port fields; we need to articulate a clear specification of
> what we convey under what circumstances as we broaden support beyond TCP &
> UDP.

This is what I meant to suggest when I said "generalize the port
fields...". Sorry if it wasn't clear - I'm all for this approach.

Scott

References:

ICMP{,v6} type/code as a selector...

From: Dan McDonald <danmcd@Eng.Sun.Com>

Re: ICMP{,v6} type/code as a selector...

From: Stephen Kent <kent@po1.bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: "PKIX Profile for IKE"--Is it really a profile?
Next by Date: Re: Comments on CRACK
Prev by thread: Re: ICMP{,v6} type/code as a selector...
Next by thread: AH as a Transport protocol
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread