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

Re: Commit Bit and SPI?

To: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Commit Bit and SPI?
From: Will Fiveash <will@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:59:47 -0600
Cc: IETF IPSec <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000210183012.2580A-100000@jvilhube-ss20.cisco.com>; from vilhuber@cisco.com on Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:30:36PM -0800
Mail-Followup-To: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>,IETF IPSec <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
References: <20000210191727.B39074@austin.ibm.com> <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000210183012.2580A-100000@jvilhube-ss20.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.2i

On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:30:36PM -0800, Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> I thought CB was a MUST, so everyone should be honoring it, or they're not
> 'compliant' (whatever that means)..

At the last bakeoff several vendors, including SSH, said they did not
support Commit Bit or they supported the RFC2408 version (AS/400, 3Com).
Of course if those who don't support the draft version of commit bit are
willing to handle customer support when the finger pointing starts then
please disregard my statements concerning the reflected negotiation of the
CB.

-- 
Will Fiveash

References:

Re: Commit Bit and SPI?

From: Will Fiveash <will@austin.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-09
Next by Date: TISC April 24-28 2000 San Jose
Prev by thread: Re: Commit Bit and SPI?
Next by thread: RE: Commit Bit and SPI?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread