Hi Tobias, in your example you may specify in your draft that your Large Notify MUST be sent before sent before some other Large Notify and MAY be sent in the same INTERMEDIATE, as the third large Notify, etc.
In this case if your wish to send Large Notify 1 and Large Notify 3, you may send them together in a single exchange, then Large Notify 2 in next exchange. If you don't support say Large Notify 3, you will first send Large Notify 1 then Large Notify 2. Etc. In other words, some applications may allow combining data in a single INTERMEDIATE with data from some other drafts, others may require their own INTERMEDIATE. That's the reason that having single exchange type is more flexible than separate exchange type for every application. Regards, Valery. > I don't think that would make a difference to how it is now. > > The INTERMEDIATE draft explicitly allows to specify more than one > roundtrip, and leaves > the order of those exchanges to the documents introducing the new > roundtrips > (if I got Valery right the newer one is supposed to explicitly state how > it interacts with the older). > > If I wrote a draft today that adds a single large Notify in an > INTERMEDIATE exchange, > it would not be obvious how it would interact with e.G. the hybrid KE > that adds up to 7 > additional INTERMEDIATE roundtrips. > I would have to explicitly specify in my draft that this additional > Notify is always added to the first > INTERMEDIATE specified in the Hybrid KE, if I wanted it to be there. > Otherwise it could be added to any > of the INTERMEDIATES in that draft, or to a new INTERMEDIATE before all > hybrid KE ones, or to a new > INTERMEDIATE after the hybrid KEs... > > If I have to specify how the new Notify interacts with any of the > previous INTERMEDIATES, > I don't think it is much more work to specify how it interacts with the > same if they have different names. > It would maybe even make it clearer to some point. > > On 4/1/19 12:29 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Tobias Heider wrote: > > > >> On 3/28/19 5:18 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote: > >>> Tobias Heider: ?? > >> The question I asked was: > >> The draft already says that INTERMEDIATE can not be used without another > >> document > >> that specifies what payloads are sent in INTERMEDIATE. Why can't that > >> additional > >> document also define it's own exchange ID for that instance of > >> INTERMEDIATE instead of using > >> the same ID for different things. > > > > Because that would not allow different things needing a round trip from > > re-using the same exchange, and lead to more latency/roundtrips ? > > > > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
