wrote:
> As for buggy implementations, I think that it isn’t needed for that.
> If someone has a bug that breaks interoperability, we would in general
> take the view of “if they fix it, it will work” — in other words,
> vendors normally don’t take on the job of working around som
Russ Housley wrote:
> About two years ago, I was at a workshop where someone claimed that the
> Vendor Identifiers that are exchanged in IKE are very useful for
> dealing with bugs. The claim was that following the report of a bug,
> others could adjust their behaviors to avoid t
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item
>> for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG do
Hi Russ,
it is not exactly as you described, but very close. When RFC is unclear
fifferent vendors treat it differently. IKEv1 had quite a lot of moot
places,
much fewer are in IKEv2. Anyway, when you try to interoperate you
sometimes encounter a situation when your peer behaves very-very stran
