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

Re: comments on ikev2 05 (editorial)

To: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>
Subject: Re: comments on ikev2 05 (editorial)
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:54:52 +0100
cc: IPsec WG <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:44:42 +0200. <Pine.GSO.4.21.0303040142100.16458-100000@ee.technion.ac.il>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   (2) Section 2.2, page 13: the text says:

   >>>   can be very different. There is no ambiguity in the messages,
   >>>   however, because each the (I)nitiator and (R)eply bits in the message

   I guess that (R)eply should be replaced with (R)esponder.

=> no, the (I)nitiator bit is for the original initiator (it is used to
recognize its SPI in SPIi | SPIr), the (R)eply bit is about the current
exchange (it is used to know if the message is a request or a reply, this
information is needed to interpret the sequence number, aka message ID).

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

References:
- comments on ikev2 05 (editorial)
  - From: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-ccm-02.txt
Next by Date: RE: CP(CFG_REQUEST) required?
Prev by thread: comments on ikev2 05 (editorial)
Next by thread: Re: comments on ikev2 05 (editorial)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread