Assuming this is agreed upon by the working group, getting the text to be added
along with a diff of the draft will be helpful to share with the IESG. They
will want a quick look to make sure they agree, but it sounds like this makes
sense.
Thanks,
Kathleen
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 21,
+1
On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:49 PM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Tero,
>
>> This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis.
>> We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was
>> added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12,
>> and add note that s
: den 21 augusti 2014 13:31
To: Pål Dammvik
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; sec-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Rekeying of child sa, Question on TS handling according to RFC
5996
Pål Dammvik writes:
> One of the differences between RFC 5996 and 4306 is in the rekeying
> where it's stated in
Hi Tero,
This is also question what should we do for the rfc5996bis.
We have two options, we removed the text saying section 2.9.2 was
added in the RFC5996, or we add the section 2.9.2 from the ticket #12,
and add note that saying that this time we really added it...
What does the working grou
Pål Dammvik writes:
> One of the differences between RFC 5996 and 4306 is in the rekeying
> where it's stated in RFC 5996 section 2.8:
>
> "Note that, when rekeying, the new Child SA SHOULD NOT have
> different Traffic Selectors and algorithms than the old one."
>
> Additionally in section 1.3.3
One of the differences between RFC 5996 and 4306 is in the rekeying where it's
stated in RFC 5996 section 2.8:
"Note that, when rekeying, the new Child SA SHOULD NOT have different Traffic
Selectors and algorithms than the old one."
Additionally in section 1.3.3 (that also addresses rekeying)
