Paul Hoffman writes:
> At 3:50 PM +0300 8/24/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> >So would this text be added to both documents or what?
>
> It should go in both. That way, an implementer a year from now who
> comes across one of the RFCs will both find out about the other and
> be clear on the relationship.
>
> >If so where
> >(between section 2 and 3 in esp-null-heuristics and after or replacing
> >section 1.2 of traffic-visibility draft)?
>
> My preference for esp-null-heuristics is that this applicability
> statement be section 1.1, and that what is now section 2 (the 2119
> language) become section 1.2.
Posted new version of the draft now to the repository.
Changes are:
- Added applicability statement
- Processed comments from Yaron
- Added comment about UDP-encapsulated ESP and IPsec flows to new
section 7.
- Fixed typos
- Added text to security considerations section that attacker can
bypass inspection by other encapsulation methods too.
- Processed comments from David McGrew
- Added text about IV not necessarely being random
- Added text about minimal padding
- Removed the "XXX TBA -- including possible chunk-specific
checking" from SCTP section (if someone will provide me text about
that I will add it).
- Added some more comments to the pseudocode
--
kivi...@iki.fi
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
