Works for me. ________________________________ From: gabriel montenegro [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:21 PM To: Yoav Nir; Yaron Sheffer; [email protected] Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05
Brian Swander notes that we should be explicit about the IV which may be present. It may be clear that this is the intention, but I agree that it is best to be explicit. This is what we suggest in light of this: NEW: HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset from the beginning of the WESP header to the beginning of the Rest of Payload Data (i.e., past the IV, if present) within the encapsulated ESP header, in octets. Gabriel From: gabriel montenegro <[email protected]> To: Yoav Nir <[email protected]>; Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:05:23 AM Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05 Hi Yoav, Good catch, we say offset *to* what, but we don't say *from* where. Among the co-authors, we'd like to suggest this as a simple text change to address this: OLD: HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset to the beginning of the Payload Data in octets. NEW: HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset from the beginning of the WESP header to the beginning of the Payload Data within the encapsulated ESP header, in octets. Does this sound ok? BTW, in the case of TrailerLen we do say both *from* as well as *to*. Gabriel From: Yoav Nir <[email protected]> To: Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 4:35:19 AM Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05 I've read it again, and it seems fine. One minor issue, though. Section 2 describes the WESP header format. It has the following: HdrLen, 8 bits: Offset to the beginning of the Payload Data in octets. The receiver MUST ensure that this field matches with the header offset computed from using the negotiated SA and MUST drop the packet in case it doesn't match. I think I know what they mean, but it's entirely not clear what this field is supposed to hold. Is it the size of the existing ESP header? Is it that + 4? How about "the combined length of all the ESP fields that precede the "Payload Data" field" in ESP" ? ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [IPsec] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05 This is the beginning of a two-week WG Last Call, which will end July 18. The target status for this document is Proposed Standard. The current document is at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-05. If you have not read the document before now, please do so. Having fresh eyes on the document often brings up important issues. If you HAVE read it before, please note that there have been several revisions since San Francisco , so you might want to read it again (plus it's a short document). Send any comments to the list, even if they are as simple as "I read it and it seems fine". Please clearly indicate the position of any issue in the Internet Draft, and if possible provide alternative text. Please also indicate the nature or severity of the error or correction, e.g. major technical, minor technical, nit, so that we can quickly judge the extent of problems with the document. Thanks, Yaron Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
