I agree.
On Dec 26, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Yaron,
>
> oh, you've catched one more error in this text - it mixed up terms "ticket"
> (used in RFC5723 as Session Resumption ticket) and "token"
> (used in RFC6290 as QCD token). I din't notice that. You are right,
> that "tick
n...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5
x27;s a little late for "Merry Christmas", so just happy new year.
Yoav
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
f Of
Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5723], the situation is
similar. The responder,
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5723], the situation is
similar. The responder, which is necessarily the peer that has
crashed, SHOULD send a new ticket within the protected payload of the
IKE_S
