On Wednesday 31 January 2007 8:33 pm, Joy Latten wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:32 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > I saw that too, like I said, the patch was simply a proof-of-concept > > showing what needed to be done to allow racoon to negotiate with itself; > > there is still work that needs to be done before it is ready for actual > > use. > > I think we should figure out why this is happening. And then you should > send it to the ipsec-tools list. They are far more expert than I and may > be aware of things I am not.
Unfortunately due to an upcoming vacation (I'm aiming for a *real* vacation, i.e. no toting a laptop around) and other evaluation related tasks I don't think I am going to be able to "drive" this fix in any sort of reasonable time frame. I spent a day looking at the racoon code and writing this patch because it looked like forward progress on this bug had stalled and I thought I might be able to jump-start a solution. I was just trying to be helpful and lend a hand ... a fresh set of eyes, yadda yadda ... You and/or Catherine (you will have to forgive me, I can't remember which one of you worked on finishing up where Venkat left off with his racoon patches) have the experience working with the ipsec-tools list and getting patches accepted upstream; I think the quickest way forward at this point is if you addressed these cleanup issues and pushed the patch forward. If you have any problems I'll do my best to help, but I just don't have the resources right now to handle this issue in a reasonable period of time. -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- redhat-lspp mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
