>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:50:59 +0200,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
> Basically, I don't have a problem with your suggestion, but I have a
> couple of questions:
> 1. Isn't the notion of "traffic selector" specific to IKEv2? If so,
> should we explicitly say IKEv2 in the example?
> => the term is but not the notion. In fact the notion is from the
> architecture (RFC 2401) when SPD (Security Policy Database) entries
> are described. IMHO this is a good example of what the proper terminology
> can give, so why sulk it?
I don't mind to use the term "traffic selector", but I'm wondering
if it might be better to use IKEv2.
> 2. I'm not sure if "a traffic selector of a security association" is
> the accurate wording.
> => there are many possible addresses related to a security association
> (1 to 4 in RFC 2401, IKE and PF_KEY) so we need to be as accurate as
> possible.
> If we really want to use the notion of
> "traffic selector", shouldn't we rather simply say "traffic
> selector" (without security association)?
> => I don't know. Of course this is not ambiguous for me...
> Perhaps it is time to get an advice from our security area director?
Perhaps, but I don't know if we can expect an answer considering the
silence so far...
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
