Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-03.txt based on SEND WG experiences

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Itojun,

> >> even if there's very little use of AH in the community, major change
> >> to AH that SEND requires would require another IP protocol #, IMHO.
> >I'm not sure how significant the changes are, e.g. much of it can be seen
> >as the properties of a new algorithm.
>
> draft-ietf-send-ipsec-00.txt section 7 looks like a totally new protocol
> proposal (not a new algorithm) to me.  AH needs to fall into what is
> defined in RFC2402, and draft-ietf-send-ipsec-00.txt goes far beyond
> what defined in RFC2402.

Could you clarify? What specifically leads you to conclude that SEND should
be a new algorithm? I'm particularly interested in understanding what your
feelings are about what should and should not be legitimately included under
one of the reserved SPI before a protocol should be separated.

            jak