Re: [IPsec] Preliminary minutes for the IPsecME meeting

[Tobias Heider <[e-mail]>]

I don't think that would make a difference to how it is now.

The INTERMEDIATE draft explicitly allows to specify more than one
roundtrip, and leaves
the order of those exchanges to the documents introducing the new
roundtrips
(if I got Valery right the newer one is supposed to explicitly state how
it interacts with the older).

If I wrote a draft today that adds a single large Notify in an
INTERMEDIATE exchange,
it would not be obvious how it would interact with e.G. the hybrid KE
that adds up to 7
additional INTERMEDIATE roundtrips.
I would have to explicitly specify in my draft that this additional
Notify is always added to the first
INTERMEDIATE specified in the Hybrid KE, if I wanted it to be there.
Otherwise it could be added to any
of the INTERMEDIATES in that draft, or to a new INTERMEDIATE before all
hybrid KE ones, or to a new
INTERMEDIATE after the hybrid KEs...

If I have to specify how the new Notify interacts with any of the
previous INTERMEDIATES,
I don't think it is much more work to specify how it interacts with the
same if they have different names.
It would maybe even make it clearer to some point.

On 4/1/19 12:29 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Tobias Heider wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/19 5:18 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>>> Tobias Heider: ??
>> The question I asked was:
>> The draft already says that INTERMEDIATE can not be used without another
>> document
>> that specifies what payloads are sent in INTERMEDIATE. Why can't that
>> additional
>> document also define it's own exchange ID for that instance of
>> INTERMEDIATE instead of using
>> the same ID for different things.
>
> Because that would not allow different things needing a round trip from
> re-using the same exchange, and lead to more latency/roundtrips ?
>
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec