Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that it is better to have a single mechanism for TLS and IPsec. > However I doubt if TLS WG would take into considerations our problems, > when making its own decision. On the other hand I think that implicit > IV is unacceptable for us (at least for IKE).
Whatever problems we have with an implicit IV in ESP will also be felt by DTLS. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
