3.3.6 mentions it quite explicitly, and I don't think need to say it again is
3.3.3:
"If the responder receives a proposal that contains a Transform Type it does
not understand, or a proposal that is missing a mandatory Transform Type, it
MUST consider this proposal unacceptable; however, other proposals in the same
SA payload are processed as usual."
Thanks,
Yaron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 21:19
> To: Yaron Sheffer; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [IPsec] Issue #157: Illustrate the SA payload with a
> diagram
>
[snip]
>
> > > This begs the related question: given that there is no MUST or
> should
> >> for what goes into a Proposal, what does an ESP proposal that only
> has
> >> an ENCR and INTEG in it mean with respect to what is being proposed
> for
> >> ESN? What does an ESP proposal that has only an ENCR and ESN in it
> mean
> >> with respect to what is being proposed for INTEG? I see no MUSTs or
> >> SHOULDs answering this.
> >3.3.3 says ESN is mandatory. Which means if it is omitted, the
> recipient will reject the proposal.
>
> As I said, I don't see any MUST or SHOULD for that. It would be better
> if this was stated. A possible addition to 3.3.3 would be "A proposal
> that does not contain all of the mandatory transforms is malformed and
> MUST be rejected".
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
