[Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
"Vishwas Manral" <Vishwas@sinett.com> Mon, 09 January 2006 04:04 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EvoGw-000528-Fh; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:04:42 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EvoGu-00051u-L9 for ipsec@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:04:40 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11921 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:03:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 63-197-255-154.ded.pacbell.net ([63.197.255.154] helo=sinett.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EvoNJ-0006c0-JM for ipsec@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:11:19 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:04:29 -0800
Message-ID: <BB6D74C75CC76A419B6D6FA7C38317B2C3A515@sinett-sbs.SiNett.LAN>
Thread-Topic: Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
Thread-Index: AcYU0pafy2RJZlLbTiOhqW5X9ySukA==
From: Vishwas Manral <Vishwas@sinett.com>
To: IPsec <ipsec@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7698d1420ecbbce1995432e99bb6d1a1
Subject: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1486554665=="
Sender: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org
Hi,
I had brought out the issue more then a year back that:
RFC4301 states
- confidentiality-only (MAY be supported)
- integrity only (MUST be supported)
- confidentiality and integrity (MUST be supported)
However RFC4305 states that NULL authentication support is a MUST.
I had brought out the issue with the draft which became RFC4305. Stephen
Kent had supported the change and stated
"since we changed the requirements for encryption-only support in this
round of document revisions, I think a SHOULD here is correct."
http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05576.html
however Donald Eastlake had stated
@@@ I think draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v3-09 should be changed.
http://130.230.52.14/list-archive/ipsec/msg05578.html
The issue never got resolved and we now have this discrepancy in the
RFC's. Should I send an errata for RFC4305 regarding the same?
Thanks,
Vishwas
_______________________________________________ Ipsec mailing list Ipsec@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
- [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305 Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Ipsec] Discrepency RFC4301 and RFC4305 Stephen Kent