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

Re: phase 2 and ports

To: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: phase 2 and ports
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:27:07 -0400
cc: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, Dan Harkins <dharkins@cips.nokia.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:33:15 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006270931260.706-100000@janpc-home.cisco.com>
Reply-to: sommerfeld@East.Sun.COM
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

A "selector payload" sounds more correct than a "policy payload" --
the responder should know why the initiator decided it needed a new
SA, so the SA's can be scoped appropriately.

						- Bill

References:

Re: phase 2 and ports

From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: phase 2 and ports
Next by Date: RE: phase 2 and ports
Prev by thread: Re: phase 2 and ports
Next by thread: Re: phase 2 and ports
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread