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

Re: 2401bis Issue # 77 -- Should AH be mandatory?

To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Subject: Re: 2401bis Issue # 77 -- Should AH be mandatory?
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:53:46 +0200
cc: ipsec mailingList <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>, byfraser@cisco.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:30:09 EDT. <14991.1064529009@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   >>>>> "Karen" == Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com> writes:
       Karen> IPsec by not requiring AH and supporting just ESP. However, there
       Karen> are clearly communities, e.g., Mobile IP, that are using AH.
   
     I believe that it is being abandoned by these groups because we won't
   adjust the specification to make it work properly for them.
   
=> for Mobile IPv6 AH was possible (in fact many, including me, believe
it is better) but for simplicity it was removed from specs, first as
the default mechanism, then everywhere...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

References:
- Re: 2401bis Issue # 77 -- Should AH be mandatory?
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: Final editing instructions for ikev2 document
Next by Date: Re: 2401bis Issue # 84 -- DROP'd outbound packet
Prev by thread: Re: 2401bis Issue # 77 -- Should AH be mandatory?
Next by thread: 2401bis Issue # 79 -- Detection of dead peers and dead SAs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread