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 m
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
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 r
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, and currently the WESP header does not contain any data
> >that would benefit from integrity protection in any way.)
> [Ken] This
009 14:14
> To: Grewal, Ken
> Cc: 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
> > >p
n"
> Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" ; "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 is integrity-
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Yaron Sheffer
> > To: Tero Kivinen ; "Grewal, Ken"
>
> > Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" ; "pasi.ero...@nokia.com"
>
> > Sent: Mon, September 21, 2009 5:40:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: [IP
