The ASN.1 used here are the same ASN.1 which is used in the
AlgorithmIdentifier of the PKIX (Section 4.1.1.2 of [RFC5280]). The
It should specify encoding rules, even though it references RFC5280. So
this could say something like:
The ASN.1 used here are the same ASN.1 which is used in the
AlgorithmIdentifier of the PKIX (Section 4.1.1.2 of [RFC5280])
encoded using distinguished encoding rules (DER) [X.690].
--
the authentication methods are not negotiated in the IKEv2, the peer
is only allowed to use this authentication method if the
SIGNATURE_HASH_ALGORITHMS Notify Payload has been sent and received.
I think I said this already for -00 version, that I'd still prefer to
allow the use of the new authentication method even if the hashes weren't
negotiated (the hash is is indicated in the ASN.1). I get why we want to
negotiate them, but it's not always necessary, necessarily. And if it
isn't allowed should it be MUST NOT?
Otherwise it's great, and important work.
Pekka
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
