Re: [Ipsec] FW: Remaining issues for IKEv2

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 8:05 PM -0700 5/10/04, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>At 10:08 PM -0400 5/10/04, Stephen Kent wrote:
>>I believe the WG has come to a decision re fragment handling, as 
>>reflected in message traffic following my memo on the topic.
>
>Re-reading the thread that Ted started called "CONSENSUS TEST: 
>Fragmentation handling", it is unclear how one can claim consensus. 
>There were many suggestions for re-wordings, different suggestions 
>for the MUST/SHOULD/MAY level, and different suggestions for the 
>meaning of the values proposed.
>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--VPN Consortium

I made suggested changes and reached accord with the folks who 
actively participated and offered such suggestions on the list: 
Tero, Markku, Michael, Paul Konig, and Mark Duffy. My acceptance of 
the changes is also documented on the list. The resulting text is in 
the latest version of 2401bis that was posted a week ago. As I said, 
this appears to me to have been resolved, in that the folks who cared 
enough to participate in the discussion did not raise any objections 
after all of the changes were made.

But, I did misspeak yesterday in my hasty reply to Charlie.  At 
Tero's suggestion, the text dealing with fragment handling does refer 
to a NOTIFY for IKEv2 in support of one of the options, in addition 
to the use of OPAQUE selectors.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec