[IPsec] ikev2bis issue #182: Marking CP() as optional in early sections
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Thu, 01 April 2010 12:27 UTC
Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6209F3A7824 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPWPvkqLXw6U for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B3C3A6BD8 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 05:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o31CG0dJ021159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:16:00 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.kivinen.iki.fi (8.14.3/8.12.11) id o31CG07E000209; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 15:16:00 +0300 (EEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: fireball.kivinen.iki.fi: kivinen set sender to kivinen@iki.fi using -f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19380.36480.489212.268603@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:16:00 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c7d83e43b9bb@[10.20.30.158]>
References: <p06240808c7d83e43b9bb@[10.20.30.158]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 21.4.1
X-Edit-Time: 4 min
X-Total-Time: 3 min
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: [IPsec] ikev2bis issue #182: Marking CP() as optional in early sections
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:27:16 -0000
Paul Hoffman writes: > Sean Turner asks: Sec 1.2/2.19: Shouldn't "[CP()]" be in message 3 > and 4 in Section 1.2? I do not think so. The 1.2 section covers basic exchange. The special cases like Cookies (2.6), EAP (2.16), Configuration payloads (2.19), and NAT-T (2.23) have their own sections, and does not need to be covered by the basic exchange. -- kivinen@iki.fi
- [IPsec] ikev2bis issue #182: Marking CP() as opti… Paul Hoffman
- [IPsec] ikev2bis issue #182: Marking CP() as opti… Tero Kivinen