IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: simplifying rekeying [draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt]

Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> Thu, 13 July 2000 22:34 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10683; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA02030 Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:33:33 -0400
From: Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@cips.nokia.com>
cc: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>, IPsec List <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>, Hugh Daniel <hugh@toad.com>, John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Subject: Re: simplifying rekeying [draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt]
In-Reply-To: <200007130135.SAA23452@potassium.network-alchemy.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.1000713172427.26484B-100000@spsystems.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Dan Harkins wrote:
>   For all the complaints about poor definition of terms (e.g. "system")
> it seems surprising that a private definition of "unique" would guide
> an objection to advancement of this draft.

"Unique" is a word readily found in dictionaries; our definition is the
standard one.  Although there is a vague implication in the RFC that the
uniqueness is intended to be only within the space of simultaneous
negotiations, neither this nor any other restriction on the scope of
uniqueness is actually stated.  We do not feel it is unreasonable to
interpret this as meaning that message IDs are supposed to be *unique*,
in the strict dictionary sense of the word (within the obvious sanity
constraint that different hosts cannot plausibly be prevented from
choosing the same message ID).

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       henry@spsystems.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email