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

Re: IPSEC WG vs. IPSP/ISPRA WGs (Re: phase 2 and ports)

To: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>
Subject: Re: IPSEC WG vs. IPSP/ISPRA WGs (Re: phase 2 and ports)
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:00:48 -0400
Cc: andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com, "'Jan Vilhuber'" <vilhuber@cisco.com>, Andrew Krywaniuk </o=TimeStepCorporation/ou=TIMESTEP/cn=Recipients/cn=akrywaniuk@ns01.newbridge.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 17:40:54 +0300." <395CB176.C60D479A@F-Secure.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


> 2) Specify a policy payload without specifying any of its contents.
>    Specify exactly how/when the policy payload may be used. "The policy
>    payload is passed to a policy module, the policy module responds
>    OK, NOT OK... this affects IKE negotiation as follows.. blah.."
>    Write this also in a standard RFC.

Interesting to see someone else think of this...that's exactly what we did with
KeyNote in IKE, but we just used the CERT payload.
-Angelos

References:

IPSEC WG vs. IPSP/ISPRA WGs (Re: phase 2 and ports)

From: Ari Huttunen <Ari.Huttunen@F-Secure.com>

Prev by Date: IPSEC WG vs. IPSP/ISPRA WGs (Re: phase 2 and ports)
Next by Date: Re: Comments on: draft-vlado-ipsec-keep-alive-00.txt
Prev by thread: IPSEC WG vs. IPSP/ISPRA WGs (Re: phase 2 and ports)
Next by thread: Re: phase 2 and ports
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread