Hi Yoav,
Please find my input inline .
With Regards,
Raj
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Hi Raj
>
> The ordinary thing for a responder to do with unrecognized Notifies/VIDs is
> to ignore them. So the only responder that will behave as you suggest is one
> that supports this
Hi Raj
The ordinary thing for a responder to do with unrecognized Notifies/VIDs is to
ignore them. So the only responder that will behave as you suggest is one that
supports this extension, but is configured not to.
At least for the remote access client, it makes sense for a client that faces
This is the beginning of a two-week WG Last Call, which will end July 18.
The target status for this document is Proposed Standard. The current
document is at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05.
If you have not read the document before now, please do so. Having
Hi Raj,
We sure can. But it will not be any of the existing payloads, i.e. won't be
a Notify or a Vendor ID. It will be a completely new payload, presumably
with the same semantics.
Thanks,
Yaron
_
From: Raj Singh [mailto:rsjen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 0
Hi Yaron,
Its clear that critical bit refer to the payload, than to its content. Point
well taken.
But i am not able to understand why we can't define "critical" bit for new
CHILDLESS_IKE_AUTH notify/VID payload ?
With Regards,
Raj
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Nope.
At 7:43 AM -0400 7/4/09, Scott C Moonen wrote:
>What's the next step?
I have sent a message to the RFC Editor (which then gets sent to the doc
authors and the IESG) about my concern about the correctness of the errata. We
see how that plays out.
>If there's agreement that we need a new RFC, I
Nope. The Critical bit refers to the payload, rather than to its contents,
and in fact cannot be set for payloads defined in RFC 4306 (such as VID and
Notify). So you need to define a NEW payload to benefit from it.
Thanks,
Yaron
_
From: Raj Singh [mailto:rsjen...@gmai
Thanks, Paul, Sean.
What's the next step? If there's agreement that we need a new RFC, I'd be
glad to pitch in with the effort.
Scott Moonen (smoo...@us.ibm.com)
z/OS Communications Server TCP/IP Development
http://scott.andstuff.org/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/smoonen
From:
Paul Hoffman
T
Hi Yaron,
I agree with you.
Your suggestion of having "critical" bit set on childless notify/VID payload
from initiator in IKE_SA_INIT exchange will define the bahavior as mentioned
below.
If initiator want to childless IKE_AUTH, it will send CHILDLESS_IKE_AUTH
notify/VID payload having "critica
