Hi Tero,
thanks for your comments. I (obviously) disagree with your position on
EAP, but I'll leave it at that. The WG decided we will specify this
extension, and the market will decide in what exact scenarios it is, or
isn't, useful.
I will change the text in Sec. 3.
Regards,
Yaron
On 05/18/2010 03:58 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
I read this document and it seems to be mostly ok.
I might disagree on some parts of the section 1 text talking why EAP
is needed (I think the main reason was to support legacy systems. The
public keys are flexible enough to meet requirements of many
deployment scenarios unless your requirement includes "that must
support old legacy infrastructure"), but I do not think there is need
to change text there.
The section 3 should add text telling what protocol ID is used for the
notification, just like most of the other extensions do: "Protocol ID
and the SPI Size fields MUST both be sent as 0.", i.e. change:
The SPI size field is set
to zero, and there is no additional data associated with this
notification.
to
The protocol ID and SPI size fields are set
to zero, and there is no additional data associated with this
notification.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
