Paul Hoffman writes:
At 2:07 PM +0200 2/8/10, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Paul Hoffman writes:
In the first case, if the receiving node has an active IKE SA to the
IP address from whence the packet came, it MAY send an INVALID_SPI
notification of the wayward packet over that IKE SA in an
Paul Hoffman writes:
In the first case, if the receiving node has an active IKE SA to the
IP address from whence the packet came, it MAY send an INVALID_SPI
notification of the wayward packet over that IKE SA in an
Informational exchange. The Notification Data contains the SPI of
At 2:07 PM +0200 2/8/10, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Paul Hoffman writes:
In the first case, if the receiving node has an active IKE SA to the
IP address from whence the packet came, it MAY send an INVALID_SPI
notification of the wayward packet over that IKE SA in an
Informational
At 9:48 AM +0300 2/4/10, Valery Smyslov wrote:
These two paragraphs are left from previous version and
should be removed (now all they are talking about is explained
in more details below).
There were bits in those two paragraphs that were still new, but on further
looking, I see that those bits
Paul Hoffman writes:
Probably s/informational/Informational ? I'm not sure because the
term Informational Message is never formally introduced in the document
apart from this section...
Actually, it is introduced in 1.4: Note that some informational messages, not
exchanges, can be sent
Paul Hoffman writes:
A few comments.
I took Yoav's proposed replacement for the last three paragraphs of 1.5 and
made some
editorial changes. This is a big enough change, I want to be sure everyone
agrees to the
new wording. The section now (in my temporary copy of the draft) reads:
1.5.
the request. The Response bit is set to 1, and the version
flags are set in the normal fashion.
-Original Message-
From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivi...@iki.fi]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:40 PM
To: Yoav Nir
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Closing issue #143 (rewrite of section 1.5
Hi all.
Combining Pasi's proposed text with Tero's comments I came up with this version.
Is this acceptable to everyone?
Yoav
There are couple of cases when a node receives a packet it cannot
process, but may want to notify the sender about this situation:
o If an ESP or AH packet
