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

RE: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft

To: "Charlie Kaufman" <charliek@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:46:16 -0500
Cc: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-reply-to: <F5F4EC6358916448A81370AF56F211A5023E4DF4@RED-MSG-51.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F5F4EC6358916448A81370AF56F211A5023E4DF4@RED-MSG-51.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Charlie,

I do not agree with this interpretation for IKEv2.

So far the WG response to my memo on fragments has been pretty 
positive. If the WG agrees with the recommendations, then we need a 
way to represent ANY vs. OPAQUE, consistent with the semantics 
described in the memo.

Since IKEv2 and 2401bis are so closely related, I don't think there 
is a benefit to trying to progress IKEv2 before we resolve the 
outstanding issues for 240bis.  A major problem with IKEv1 and 2401 
was the fact that the two were not completely aligned, resulting in 
ambiguity and downright inconsistencies. Let's try to avoid that this 
tme around.

Steve

References:
- RE: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft
  - From: "Charlie Kaufman" <charliek@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: RE: responding to unknown SPIs
Next by Date: Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
Previous by thread: RE: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft
Next by thread: RE: EAP Roundtrips (was: Temporary version of the new IKEv2 draft)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread