On 6/29/2016 5:45 AM, Black, David wrote: > Hi Derek, > >> > Having encryption params within the scheme being renegotiated seems >> > likely, but not >> > changing the scheme, as such I can't see the need to preclude reuse of >> > the option >> > values for per scheme use once the scheme is selected. The actual use I >> > was expecting >> > was that the per scheme renegotiation would/could use those values for >> > negotiating >> > new keys, or other per-scheme values. > Hmm - looks like I may have misread this text last night as releasing the > option for arbitrary > usage. I suppose what is there is ok, but I'd prefer to see another option > kind allocated for > encryption spec usage (if we anticipate that being needed) rather than > overloading the > TCP-ENO option kind. > > Thanks, --David
AFAICT, the encryption spec is a component of TCP-ENO. This wouldn't be "overloading", but a sub-field or variant. IMO, TCP option kind numbers ought to be assigned only for independently useful options. Joe _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
