Re: Latest AH/ESP/Arch drafts and changes

Peter Curran <pcurran@ticl.co.uk> Mon, 11 May 1998 19:51 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id PAA15109 for ipsec-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 15:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199805112009.VAA24860@gate.ticl.co.uk>
X-Sender: peter@gate (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 21:07:01 +0100
To: Karen Seo <kseo@bbn.com>
From: Peter Curran <pcurran@ticl.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Latest AH/ESP/Arch drafts and changes
Cc: ipsec@tis.com, kseo@bbn.com
In-Reply-To: <199805110517.BAA05493@relay.hq.tis.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Karen

At 01:16 11/05/98 -0400, Karen Seo wrote:
>Folks,
>
>In follow-up to the IESG vote/feedback and recent email...
>
>1. Per direction from Ted Ts'o, we are sending to the IETF secretariat
>   and the mailing list, revised versions of the following drafts:
>        o AH -- draft-ietf-ipsec-auth-header-06.txt
>        o ESP -- draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-v2-05.txt
>        o Architecture -- draft-ietf-ipsec-arch-sec-05.txt
>
>   These drafts contain the changes listed below in part 1 and part 2.
>   ........................
 
Bit disappointed to see that you did not tidy up the item concerning the
handling of IPv6 hop-limit when using tunnel-mode between two boxes, as
opposed to the case of forwarding into a tunnel.  I think that the
discussion here and on the IPNG list agreed that the wording required
clarification to differentiate the cases.  Is there a reason, or is it a
future task, or was it done anyway but not included in your abstract?

Regards

Peter Curran