Hello all.
Issue #26 was submitted by Tero Kivinen. It concerns section 2.21
(error handling) and states that several things are missing:
- handling of errors before authentication
- listing what error conditions cause the IKE SA to be deleted entirely
- listing how errors are handled in the
Yoav Nir writes:
Following is our suggested new text. Please let us know what you
think. Also, please take a look at the description of
AUTHENTICATION_FAILED in section 3.10.1. response to an IKE_AUTH
message means either an IKE_AUTH response to an IKE_AUTH request, or
an
On Sep 1, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Yoav Nir writes:
Following is our suggested new text. Please let us know what you
think. Also, please take a look at the description of
AUTHENTICATION_FAILED in section 3.10.1. response to an IKE_AUTH
message means either an IKE_AUTH response
Hi All,
I have a question about IVs of retransmitted packets.
According to ikev2bis-04 section 2.1:
A retransmission from the initiator
MUST be bitwise identical to the original request. That is,
everything starting from the IKE Header (the IKE SA Initiator's SPI
onwards) must be
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility
Author(s) : K. Grewal, et al.
I believe the draft is ready for AD review now. Below is my shepherd
write-up, for your comments.
Thanks,
Yaron
Document name: Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility,
draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibility-08.txt
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has
