Re: [IPSECKEY] Security Considerations (pass 2)

[Jean-Jacques Puig <Jean-Jacques.Puig@int-evry.fr>]

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:33:25PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     >> I would take type=0 as a clue that the host will accept transport mode
>     >> SA, and (type != 0 && address == RR_owner) as a clue that the host will
>     >> take only tunnel mode proposals. Is it the original intent ?
> 
>     Rob> Michael will have to speak to intent, but I didn't read it that way.
>     Rob> I read the two cases as semantically equivalent, and had assumed that
>     Rob> the choice of tunnel vs transport mode was something to be negotiated
>     Rob> by the parties involved.
> 
>   No intent is implied by this document.
>   My opinion is that you would need to write a use-case document that
> explains how to you are using the record.

	Right. Then current consideration about RR owner name matching
content of the gateway field sounds both precise enough and not too
restrictive. Looks fine for me.

--
Jean-Jacques
-
This is the IPSECKEY@sandelman.ca list.
Email to ipseckey-request@sandelman.ca to be removed.