In your previous mail you wrote:
We are not talking about changing AH v1; we are discussing AH v2. To
correctly implement AH v2, one already has to be able to accommodate
64 bit sequence numbers, vs. the 32 bit sequence numbers in v1. AH v2
is still an I-D, not an RFC. So, while a change in whether to include
the flow label in the ICV would make v2 not backward compatible with
v1, v2 is already not backward compatible with v1 due to the required
sequence number support difference.
=> Steve, your numbering is not compatible with the usual one, i.e.,
we are talking about v3... (proof by the name of the ESP v3 draft)
And the ESN (extended (64) sequence number) is an option which is
negociated at the SA establishment, so it is not true to say the v3
is always not backward compatible with v2 (v1 is still supported
by some implementations but seems to be no more used). But one can
say we have an indirect way to distinguish v2 and v3 using the ESN
feature...
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis,
You are right that my numbering was off. I tend to ignore the first set of ESp & AH specs. They were rushed to publication before they had a chance to be thoroughly developed, and as a result they were not widely adopted. But, you are right, we are talking about v3 at this point.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
