On Jan 5, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote: > Hi, > > We have had a few "discusses" during the IESG review of the WESP draft. To > help resolve them, we would like to reopen the following two questions to WG > discussion. Well reasoned answers are certainly appreciated. But plain "yes" > or "no" would also be useful in judging the group's consensus. > > - The current draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-11) defines > the ESP trailer's ICV calculation to include the WESP header. This has been > done to counter certain attacks, but it means that WESP is no longer a simple > wrapper around ESP - ESP itself is modified. Do you support this design > decision? > > - The current draft allows WESP to be applied to encrypted ESP flows, in > addition to the originally specified ESP-null. This was intended so that > encrypted flows can benefit from the future extensibility offered by WESP. > But arguably, it positions WESP as an alternative to ESP. Do you support this > design decision? > > Thanks, > Yaron
Yes to both. Regardless of what the original work item specified, WESP as it is now is an alternative to ESP. In the long run it makes no sense to have them both, so one will get obsoleted (just as AH is getting there). I see no benefit in crippling WESP to either keep the old ESP unchanged or to keep some functionality (like encryption) as ESP-only. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
