RE: [Hipsec] a state machine proposal for mm-03

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

> LOCATOR is just sent to the peer based on local mobility/policy
> decision, and the UPDATE is ACKed for reliability's sake.
> ECHO_REQUEST/RESPONSE is a nonce exchange, used by the peer for
> reachability test.  We describe some scenarios where these parameters
> can be piggybacked on the same UPDATE message, but there is no
> requirement to do so, and I would prefer not to constrain it in that
> way.  For instance, we should not require that the peer send the
> ECHO_REQUEST, nor should we require that the ACK of the LOCATOR also
> contain an ECHO_REQUEST rather than be in a separate packet.

Tried to loosen up the rules in favour of modularity. See if it is now
better. Not sure if it covers the peer initiated rekey case. Feel free to
modify the latest proposal accordingly. If you'd still like to discard it,
I think section 5 could still use some kind of summary that gathers up all
of the pieces, even the optional CBA.

> <rest of the comments>

Agree (based on a quick look). Feel free to modify the text accordingly
based on the latest version I sent.

> > Handling of CLOSE with ESP_INFO:
> > - TBD
>
> The other opinions seemed to be to not use CLOSE for this purpose.

Agree.

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec