Hi Raj
I don’t think we can specify MUST requirements for the AAA servers, because
we’re not specifying RADIUS or DIAMETER here.
For example in RADIUS, the VPN gateway sends an Access-Request to the server,
which contains the user-name, presumably the same user-name from the IDi
payload.
If t
Hi all.
5 more issues.
Issue #153 - List of EAP methods
3.16: I suggest to remove the table quoted from the EAP RFC. There are dozens
of methods now in the IANA registry, many of which are preferable to the ones
mentioned here.
I agree, especially since we have
At Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:20:20 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> 5 more issues.
>
> ...
>
>
> Issue #157 - Illustrate the SA payload with a diagram
> =
> The text in 3.3 requires "peace of mind" to fully appreciate.
> A diagram might be helpful.
>
At 7:12 PM +0100 2/3/10, Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= wrote:
>At Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:20:20 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> 5 more issues.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Issue #157 - Illustrate the SA payload with a diagram
>> =
>> The text in 3.3 re
First: my apology for allowing this long post on the mailing list. I didn't see
the part about its length in the list admin interface.
Second: the reason I let it on was to remind people that asking about specific
implementations is inappropriate for this mailing list. Nikhil: you need to
take
I took Yoav's proposed replacement for the last three paragraphs of 1.5 and
made some editorial changes. This is a big enough change, I want to be sure
everyone agrees to the new wording. The section now (in my temporary copy of
the draft) reads:
1.5. Informational Messages outside of an IKE S
I find Tero's figure easier to understand, more "illustrative". This is
obviously very subjective.
Yaron
> -Original Message-
> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of a...@tr-sys.de
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 20:12
> To: ipsec@ietf.o
Paul Hoffman writes:
A few comments.
> I took Yoav's proposed replacement for the last three paragraphs of 1.5 and
> made some
editorial changes. This is a big enough change, I want to be sure everyone
agrees to the
new wording. The section now (in my temporary copy of the draft) reads:
>
> 1.5
