[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Michael's comments on ikev2 draft
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Andrew Krywaniuk wrote:
> The problem is that the WG never standardized on an interoperable rekeying
> behaviour. We follow the now-expired Tim Jenkins rekeying draft, but others
> have invented at least 3 other distinct rekeying techniques. Fortunately,
> where incompatibilities exist, they are mostly fixed by the reception of a
> delete. The delete may be unreliable, but it still gets there most of the
> time...
This I will agree with. While I believe that any implementation which
relies on getting Deletes is unquestionably and inarguably broken -- not
just different but verifiably *wrong* -- I concur that (a) such defective
implementations do exist, (b) sending Delete improves interoperability
with them, (c) much grief would have been avoided had these issues
received proper attention in the standard, and (d) the next standard
should not repeat the mistake.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net
Follow-Ups:
References: