[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Commit Bit and SPI?
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Dan Harkins wrote:
> The other issue is do you have to reflect back the bit if the peer sets
> it or can you "negotiate" this capability? Well if you could choose to
> reflect it what if the initiator sets it in Quick Mode message #3?
Then we should restrict the initiator to turning on the bit in the first QM
msg. The responder can turn it on in the second QM msg. If a
implementation honors the CB then it should reflect it otherwise it does
not.
> Something has to be said to clear this up, yes. But it's a decision of
> the WG. Do we send a notify for each SA pair containing the responder's
> SPI(s) or do we send a single notify with no SPIs? Can we not reflect the
> commit bit and if so what does that mean? Who can set the commit bit and
> where should that be allowed and prohibited? If we can get some consensus
> on this matter it'll go in the document but a unilateral decision by me
> will only result in conflict.
I understand your point which is why I brought this up on the mail-list.
> I'm sorry you are disappointed in my lack of attention to this but the
> IETF does not pay and consequently gets put in my queue at the appropriate
> place. I'm trying but these are crazy times.
Sorry about my snide comment. I guess I'm a little frustrated with the way
some of the protocol details seem to get left up in the air (by the WG).
--
Will Fiveash
IBM AIX System Development
References: