[IPsec] Review of draft-montenegro-ipsecme-wesp-extensions-00

2009-11-28 Thread Min Huang
Section2, Page4 1 bit: Extensions Present (X). Setting the Extensions Present bit to 1 indicates that WESP Extensions are present between the WESP Header and the ESP Header (as shown above). The recipient MUST ensure consistency of this flag with the negotiated policy

Re: [IPsec] Ensuring future extensibility for WESP

2009-11-28 Thread Min Huang
I like this as well. This is the minimal change to add extensilibity to WESP. Howerver, there is a small problem here. As Yaron suggested: 2. If P=1 (Padding Present flag), the first octet of the Padding field will hold the padding's length. [Hardware implementations can check that it is 4 for

Re: [IPsec] #123: Proposal to remove the IANA tables from IKEv2bis

2009-11-28 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 11:11 PM +0300 11/27/09, Valery Smyslov wrote: Hi Paul, please, see inline. 2. IANA registry already contains some very specific entries (like, for example, those that came from RFC4595) and their number will be increasing. I think, those numbers would confuse some implementers, who

Re: [IPsec] Ensuring future extensibility for WESP

2009-11-28 Thread Yaron Sheffer
Hi Min, Thanks for your (correct) comment. Yaron -Original Message- From: Min Huang [mailto:huang...@huaweisymantec.com] Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:57 To: Yaron Sheffer Cc: ipsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [IPsec] Ensuring future extensibility for WESP I like