pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes: > What do you think of the proposed text here? > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg04096.html
The NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS error should be added to the error list, and I am not completely happy with the last paragraph, i.e. it could be expanded bit more to explain the situation more, not just say "treated with caution". I am bit worried that implementors do not understand the difference with encrypted and MACed compared to the fact that the other peer has authenticated himself (i.e. sent AUTH payload). I think adding bit more text there to make that clear would be needed. -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
