Re: [Ipsec] draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-02.txt

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

Title: Re: [Ipsec] draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-02.txt

At 2:04 PM -0700 5/11/04, Krell, Sherry wrote:

> I just
> wanted to make sure I understand the difference between this draft and
> RFC2401, with regards to IPv6 and IPSec.  Section 10 of RFC2401
> states that all IPv6 implementations MUST comply with all requirements
> of RFC 2401.  Section 9 of the draft states that all IPv6
> implementations claiming to implement IPSec MUST comply with all
> requirements of the draft.  So IPSec is no longer required for
> IPv6 implementations?
>

I'm sure the text in 2401bis does not use the term IPSec, except to state that this is not an approved way to refer to these protocols :-)

There seems to have been a typo introduced in the posted version. The text I reviewed and that I have on my computer says (in section 10, not 9):

All IPv4 systems that claim to implement IPsec MUST comply with all

requirements of the Security Architecture document.  All IPv6 systems MUST comply with all requirements of the Security Architecture document.

So, we'll make sure the above text is in the next version.

Steve