At 3:46 PM +0200 1/19/10, Tero Kivinen wrote: >Paul Hoffman writes: >> Section 1.3.1 now talks about the USE_TRANSPORT_MODE, >> ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED and NON_FIRST_FRAMENTS_ALSO notifications, >> and says they can be included, but the packet figure does not include >> them. Adding them to the figure would be easy, but the problem is that we >> currently say that you should follow the order of payloads from the >> figures (altough we do refer to section 2 not section 1, but this is one >> of the open issues). >> >> So depending what we decided on the payload order and figures, it might >> be better to add one extra ", [N]" to the figure before SA payload. >> >> [[ Response: It is not an open issue. The spec says "implementations >> MUST NOT reject as invalid a message with those payloads in any >> other order". Thus, putting the "[N]" in the figure is likely to be >> more confusing than helpful because [N] can appear in almost *any* >> of the figures. ]] > >Yes [N] Can appear in any figure. > >On the other hand we are now talking about Notification payloads in >the section 1.3.1 and the figures don't show them at all, which can >cause confusion.
My ability to predict confusion is better than yours. :-) Seriously, they both can be confusing, and I think that inconsistent placement of [N] is more confusing than consistent non-placement of [N]. >BTW, so we are going to leave the reference to point to only section 2 >in the end of section 2.5? No, it now says sections 1 and 2. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
