RE: IKEv2 transport concerns

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 7:06 PM -0500 12/3/02, Black_David@emc.com wrote:
>  > >>>>> "Black" == Black David <Black_David@emc.com> writes:
>>      Black> (1) Any system running IKEv2 is REQUIRED to handle ECN
>(Explicit
>>
>>    I think that this may be misplaced. I think that RFC2401bis is where
>>  to say this.
>
>I think it needs to be in both places.  We have a one-time opportunity
>to avoid the IKEv1 ECN negotiation kludge if all IKEv2 implementations
>are REQUIRED to handle ECN correctly at tunnel egress.  IMHO, this
>outcome is important enough to merit specifying the means of achieving
>it in both the IKEv2 and RFC2401bis documents.  If we wind up dealing
>with IKEv2 systems that get this wrong, the negotiation kludge will be
>with us for much longer ...

David,

I don't think the IKE v2 document is the appropriate place to make 
note of the ECN handling you refer to, since it applies to the 
actions performed on the child SAs that IKE establishes, not on the 
IKE SAs, right? It really is a 2401bis matter, I believe.

Steve