Kivinen kivi...@iki.fi; Grewal, Ken
ken.gre...@intel.com
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org ipsec@ietf.org; pasi.ero...@nokia.com
pasi.ero...@nokia.com
Sent: Mon, September 21, 2009 5:40:19 AM
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-
traffic-visibility
Hi Tero,
Given
; Grewal, Ken ken.gre...@intel.com
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org ipsec@ietf.org; pasi.ero...@nokia.com
pasi.ero...@nokia.com
Sent: Mon, September 21, 2009 5:40:19 AM
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review comments for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility
Hi Tero,
Given that the existing ESP header
: ipsec@ietf.org; pasi.ero...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-
visibility
Grewal, Ken writes:
- A question: did the WG discuss the pros and cons of integrity
protecting the WESP header? (This does make WESP more complex to
implement
pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes:
- A question: did the WG discuss the pros and cons of integrity
protecting the WESP header? (This does make WESP more complex to
implement, and currently the WESP header does not contain any data
that would benefit from integrity protection in any way.)
Thats is
from the discussion during the
interim meeting.
Thanks,
- Ken
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of pasi.ero...@nokia.com
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:05 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft
I've now done my AD review for draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.
I have two substantive comments, and a bunch of minor clarifications/nits.
The substantive comments first:
- A question: did the WG discuss the pros and cons of integrity
protecting the WESP header? (This does make WESP
