Re: AH and flow label
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> Fri, 08 October 2004 14:22 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28046 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:22:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFvnw-0007n5-UB for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:33:12 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFvOe-0001rA-FC; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:07:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFvH8-0005xt-Qh for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:59:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24565 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFvR3-00073z-ML for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:09:31 -0400
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [193.52.74.194]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.11.6p2/8.11.6/2003.04.01) with ESMTP id i98DwQR12080; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:58:26 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i98DwQSj035297; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:58:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200410081358.i98DwQSj035297@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
To: timothy enos <timbeck04@verizon.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:35:13 EDT. <000001c4acf8$995f8f20$bcf0fea9@S018431>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:58:26 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AH and flow label
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
In your previous mail you wrote:
Good morning. Having been away from the list for a while, it's not clear
to me what (if any) the consensus (and subsequent decision) is regarding
inclusion of the IPv6 Flow Label field in the AH ICV. If consensus and a
decision were reached, what were/are they?
=> a consensus was reached and its result announced by Stephen Kent
(1- keep compatibility, 2- fix the rationale).
Cf draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-08.txt:
(*) The flow label described in AHv1 was mutable, and in
RFC 2460 [DH98] was potentially mutable. To retain
compatibility with existing AH implementations, the
flow label is not included in the ICV in AHv2.
Regards
Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- RE: AH and flow label timothy enos
- Re: AH and flow label Francis Dupont
- RE: AH and flow label Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: AH and flow label Brian E Carpenter