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

Re: Phase 1 IDs ("son of IKE")

To: Mike Ditto <ford@apollo.incog.com>
Subject: Re: Phase 1 IDs ("son of IKE")
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 17:05:39 -0400
Cc: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Aug 2001 14:07:37 PDT." <200108072107.OAA10431@potomac.incog.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com


In message <200108072107.OAA10431@potomac.incog.com>, Mike Ditto writes:
 >
 >I don't think it's more complicated.  Instead of saying "the responder
 >must ignore the hint or use it as the value of the subsequent IDir
 >payload," you say "the responder may use the hint in an
 >implementation-defined way to influence its selection of its own
 >identity."

Oh, I see. That'd be fine.
-Angelos

References:

Re: Phase 1 IDs ("son of IKE")

From: Mike Ditto <ford@apollo.incog.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Wes Hardaker: opportunistic encryption deployment problems
Next by Date: Re: Phase 1 IDs ("son of IKE")
Prev by thread: Re: Phase 1 IDs ("son of IKE")
Next by thread: Cookies only make you fat
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread