Hi Paul, just a small clarification and a comment.
> This sentence is confusing: > > ESP can be used to authenticate only or to encrypt the communication. > > Since IPsec-v2 allowed ESP without authentication, and IPsec-v3 only has > authenticated ESP. It's better to say ESP allows null-encryption and not > mention authentication (which always happens) In fact, RFC 4303 does allow using encryption w/o authentication for ESP, unless NULL encryption is used. > All in all, I think the document should more clearly seperate the issues > of a minimal ESP implementation, and any proposed modifications to ESP. > And if that is done, the protocol shouldn't be ESP but something new, > unless it is completely backwards compatible (like IPsec-v2 to-> > IPsec-v3 was) > > If the document is defining a minimum/battery optimized ESP > configuartion, I have no problems with it and I will review further > text and welcome adoption. If it makes changes to the ESP protocol, > then I think there should be more discussion before adoption. I agree with this. Regards, Valery. > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
