] On Behalf
> Of ext Tero Kivinen
> Sent: 17 August, 2009 14:34
> To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-
> resumption
>
> pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes:
> > - Section 5: Peer vendor I
pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes:
> - Section 5: Peer vendor IDs cannot be "implementation specific" -- if
> the old gateway sent Vendor ID "FOO", the client has to unambiguously
> know whether it's allowed to FOO vendor-specific payloads to the new
> gateway or not. Probably this should be "Not resume
Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > - Section A.1 should say that the notation used for the example
> > ticket formats is intended to be pseudo-code, and does not specify
> > exact octet-by-octet format. (And probably things like
> > "reserved[3]" should be removed, since they don't really belong in
> > pseu
At 3:33 PM -0400 8/15/09, Stephen Kent wrote:
>At 12:52 PM +0300 8/15/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>>C
>>This document does not specify a mandatory-to-implement or a
>>mandatory-to-use ticket format. The formats described in the following
>>sub-sections are provided as useful examples, and implementers
At 12:52 PM +0300 8/15/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
C
This document does not specify a mandatory-to-implement or a
mandatory-to-use ticket format. The formats described in the following
sub-sections are provided as useful examples, and implementers are free to
adopt them as-is on change them in any w
rg
> Subject: [IPsec] AD review comments for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-
> resumption
>
[snip]
>
> - Section A.1 should say that the notation used for the example ticket
> formats is intended to be pseudo-code, and does not specify exact
> octet-by-octet format. (And proba
I've now done my AD review for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-resumption-06.
Most of my comments are about clarifying text (so that readers who
didn't participate in the WG discussions can understand this
unambiguously), plus couple of nits.
Yaron and Hannes, could you post a new version addressing th
