Brian Swander notes that we should be explicit about the IV
which may be present. It may be clear that this is the intention, but I agree
that
it is best to be explicit.
This is what we suggest in light of this:
NEW:
HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset from the beginning of the WESP header to
the beginning of the Rest of Payload Data (i.e., past the IV,
if present) within the encapsulated ESP header, inoctets.
Gabriel
>
>From: gabriel montenegro <g_e_montene...@yahoo.com>
>To: Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com>; Yaron Sheffer <yar...@checkpoint.com>;
>"ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
>Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:05:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05
>
>
>Hi Yoav,
>
>Good catch, we say offset *to* what, but we don’t say *from* where.
>
>Among the co-authors, we'd like to suggest this as a simple text change to
>address this:
>
>OLD:
> HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset to the beginning of the Payload Data in
> octets.
>
>NEW:
> HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset from the beginning of the WESP header to
> the beginning of the Payload Data within the encapsulated ESP header, in
> octets.
>
>
>Does this sound ok?
>
>BTW, in the case of TrailerLen we do say both *from* as well as *to*.
>
>Gabriel
>
>>
>>From: Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com>
>>To: Yaron Sheffer <yar...@checkpoint.com>; "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:35:19 AM
>>Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05
>>
>>
>>I’ve read it again, and it seems fine. One minor issue, though.
>>
>>Section 2 describes the WESP header format. It has the following:
>> HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset to the beginning of the Payload Data in
>> octets. The receiver MUST ensure that this field matches with
>> the header offset computed from using the negotiated SA and MUST
>> drop the packet in case it doesn't match.
>>
>>I think I know what they mean, but it’s entirely not clear what this field is
>>supposed to hold. Is it the size of the existing ESP header? Is it that +
>>4? How about “the combined length of all the ESP fields that precede the
>>“Payload Data” field” in ESP” ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
>>From:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>Yaron Sheffer
>>Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:48 PM
>>To: ipsec@ietf.org
>>Subject: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05
>>
>>This is the beginning of a two-week WG Last Call, which will end July 18. The
>>target status for this document is Proposed Standard. The current document is
>>at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05.
>>
>>If you have not read the document before now, please do so. Having fresh eyes
>>on the document often brings up important issues. If you HAVE read it before,
>>please note that there have been several revisions since San Francisco , so
>>you might want to read it again (plus it’s a short document). Send any
>>comments to the list, even if they are as simple as "I read it and it seems
>>fine".
>>
>>Please clearly indicate the position of any issue in the Internet Draft, and
>>if possible provide alternative text. Please also indicate the nature or
>>severity of the error or correction, e.g. major technical, minor technical,
>>nit, so that we can quickly judge the extent of problems with the document.
>>
>>Thanks,
>> Yaron
>>
>>Email secured by Check Point
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
