It seems that there I had a wrong xml-version and Jan had edited few lines for the official -01 version. This should now be the correct version, containing all the modifications:
http://jokela.org/ietf/draft-jokela-hip-rfc5202-bis-02-pre2.txt Petri On 28.1.2012, at 10.46, Miika Komu wrote: > Hi, > > On 28/01/12 08:54, Petri Jokela wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I updated the RFC5202-bis to -02 and the current pre-version can be >> found from: >> >> http://jokela.org/ietf/draft-jokela-rfc5202-bis-02-pre1.txt >> >> The IESG note is not visible in that. The note said: >> >> In case of complex Security Policy Databases (SPDs) and the >> co-existence of HIP and security-related protocols such as IKE, >> implementors may encounter conditions that are unspecified in these >> documents. For example, when the SPD defines an IP address subnet to >> be protected and a HIP host is residing in that IP address area, >> there is a possibility that the communication is encrypted multiple >> times. Readers are advised to pay special attention when running HIP >> with complex SPD settings. Future specifications should clearly >> define when multiple encryption is intended, and when it should be >> avoided. >> >> The issue was fixed in the already expired draft version -01 (see >> section 3.4). The BEET mode was also added as an appendix (B) in the >> earlier version. I made some small modifications to the author list >> in this new -02 (Pekka wanted to be delisted) and acknowledgements >> (Pekka's contribution added). >> >> Any comments? > > seems ok to me. > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
