Re: Ordering of payloads

Ben Rogers <ben@Ascend.COM> Thu, 11 September 1997 20:47 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA01357 for ipsec-outgoing; Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:47:35 -0400
Message-Id: <199709112047.QAA01357@portal.ex.tis.com>
From: Ben Rogers <ben@Ascend.COM>
To: ipsec@tis.com, isakmp-oakley@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Ordering of payloads
In-Reply-To: <199709111639.JAA26732@dharkins-ss20>
References: <199709111621.MAA05631@carp.morningstar.com> <199709111639.JAA26732@dharkins-ss20>
Reply-To: ben@Ascend.COM
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Harkins writes:
>   Ben,
> 
> > Any reason we don't mandate that the SA be the first payload for
> > aggressive mode exchanges?  Until we parse the SA payload, we have no
> > idea what to do with any of the others in that packet.  It seems that we
> > are making the packet needlessly difficult to parse if the SA payload
> > can be anywhere in the packet.
> 
>   I can't think of a reason. Is this a suggestion? You might want to run
> this by the ipsec list as well if it is. Basically I don't see a problem
> mandating that the 1st payload of the 1st message of a phase 1 exchange
> be a SA payload.

Yes, it was intended as a suggestion.  Anyone have any problems with
making the mandate which Dan states above?


ben

Re: Ordering of payloads Ben Rogers
Re: Ordering of payloads Tero Kivinen
RE: Ordering of payloads Greg Carter
RE: Ordering of payloads John Burke
RE: Ordering of payloads Ben Rogers
RE: Ordering of payloads Greg Carter
RE: Ordering of payloads W. Douglas Maughan