Does anyone have an opinion on Tero's suggestion to remove the sentence? --Paul Hoffman
At 3:29 PM +0200 12/1/09, Tero Kivinen wrote: >The section 2.9 has text which says: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >2.9. Traffic Selector Negotiation > > ... Since the two endpoints may be configured by different > people, the incompatibility may persist for an extended period even > in the absence of errors. It also allows for intentionally different > configurations, as when one end is configured to tunnel all addresses > and depends on the other end to have the up-to-date list. > > ... > > ... This case > will occur only when the initiator and responder are configured > differently from one another. If the initiator and responder agree > on the granularity of tunnels, the initiator will never request a > tunnel wider than the responder will accept. Such misconfigurations > should be recorded in error logs. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >So the first part says that traffic selectors may be different on >initiator's and responder's policy and that such a configuration may >be intentional. > >Then the second part calls such configuration misconfigurations and >require such events to be logged. > >This is bit inconsistent, and I think the second part should be >modified so that the last sentence is removed, or rephrased. >-- >kivi...@iki.fi >_______________________________________________ >IPsec mailing list >IPsec@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
