Hi Paul
Fair point - thanks.
cheers
On 20/03/2016 21:33, "Paul Wouters" wrote:
>
>I don't think mitigation text for blatant RFC errors should be added. The
>original error should just be fixed. If they don't comply with 7296, this
>document will make no difference either.
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 17:25, Graham Bartlett (grbartle)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Valery / Paul
>
> Paul - does your implementation send the INFORMATIONAL + other messages
> (Private Use Error) to a single SA_INIT? Just to clarify the issue
> observed seemed to be SA_INIT is sent
Hi Valery / Paul
Paul - does your implementation send the INFORMATIONAL + other messages
(Private Use Error) to a single SA_INIT? Just to clarify the issue
observed seemed to be SA_INIT is sent by Initiator, Responder sends an
SA_INIT reply plus numerous INFORMATIONAL messages separately to this
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I¹ve also added text around the correct sending of INFORMATIONAL messages
due to a Responder receiving an SA_INIT, this is a known problem today
with a number of implementations. (seen by Tero and myself).
I know all versions of openswan and
Hi Graham,
thank you for the updated text.
I¹ve made some amendments to the proposed text based on Valerys comments.
I¹ve also added text around the correct sending of INFORMATIONAL messages
due to a Responder receiving an SA_INIT, this is a known problem today
with a number of
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I'm confused? Why does it matter if the initial aggressive mode request
is lost or the initial aggresside mode response is lost? to the
initiator, both look the same, so it should re-transmit its original
packet?
Aggressive Mode (and Quick Mode)