[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ipsec-sctp-02.txt
>I have two comments:
>
>1. The formatting of the new ID_RECURSE is not yet defined, either in this
>draft or in the DOI (RFC 2407). In particular, the interent draft should
>cshow the format that would be used to list multiple "identities" within
>the payload of the "ID_RECURSE": that is, does each individual ID entity
>carry its own "type" and "length field". Stated differently, we need to
>specify the format for what RFC 2407 calls the "Identification Data" to be
>carried within the RECURSE_ID payload. Unless the RECURSE_ID formats are
>defined in the DOI, I feel that the internet draft itself must include them
>explicitly--otherwise, interoperability of implementations can not be
>guaranteed.
The included IDs do have their own type and length fields -- they're needed for
parsing after all. Anyway, I'll add appropriate language in the draft.
>2. (Nit picking) The name "ID_RECURSE" implies recursion, which is not
>used. I would suggest using a name such as "ID_LIST", which is more
>indicative of how this new field would be used.
Ack. I've heard this from others, so I'll call it ID_LIST after all.
Thanks,
-Angelos