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

Re: Should Alice say who she wants to talk to?

To: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Should Alice say who she wants to talk to?
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@tibernian.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 06:19:22 -0800
Cc: "William Dixon" <wdixon@windows.microsoft.com>, "Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:46:48 EST." <200112200546.fBK5kmq5026608@nyarlathotep.keromytis.org>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

  Aren't we all still prohibited from "changing IKE"? I have a draft
I'd like to rename in the draft-ietf-ipsec-* workspace :-)

  Dan.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:46:48 EST you wrote
> 
> So, I guess we should rename the draft in the draft-ietf-ipsec-*
> workspace, fill in the few blanks (explicitly show where the suggested
> ID is included in the HASH) and be done with this ?
> 
> One question I have: how would current implementations handle receiving an
> IKEv1 message 3 which had an extra payload ? Would they ignore it, or loudly
> complain and refuse to proceed ? The draft says that the Responder may ignore
> the suggested ID (so the Initiator cannot depend on the suggested value being
> returned), which is great if implementations ignore extra payloads.
> 
> (I'm trying to avoid having to bump the minor version number.)
> -Angelos
>

References:

Re: Should Alice say who she wants to talk to?

From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@cs.columbia.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Should Alice say who she wants to talk to?
Next by Date: draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-00.txt
Prev by thread: Re: Should Alice say who she wants to talk to?
Next by thread: authentication state capture
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread