Valery Smyslov writes:
> 7. Page 31.
> Phrase "(see Section 2.6)" actually references the same section. It should
> either
> be removed or corrected.
Changed:
<t>In the first message of an initial IKE exchange, the
initiator will not know the responder's SPI value and will
therefore set that field to zero. When the IKE_SA_INIT
exchange does not result in the creation of an IKE SA due to
INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD, NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN, or COOKIE (see <xref
target="sect-2.6" />), the responder's SPI will be zero also
in the response message. However, if the responder sends a
non-zero responder SPI, the initiator should not reject the
response for only that reason.</t>
To:
<t>In the first message of an initial IKE exchange, the
initiator will not know the responder's SPI value and will
therefore set that field to zero. When the IKE_SA_INIT
exchange does not result in the creation of an IKE SA due to
INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD, NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN, or COOKIE, the
responder's SPI will be zero also in the response message.
However, if the responder sends a non-zero responder SPI, the
initiator should not reject the response for only that
reason.</t>
Not sure where it could point, so I removed it. And there you can also
see why it is not so easy to see it points to section itself :-)
--
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
