Hi, this is to start a 2-week working group last call on the revised
Algorithm Implementation Requirements document, ending March 11. The
draft is at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts-01. We should
have last called the draft a while ago, and I apologize for the delay.
On Feb 25, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, this is to start a 2-week working group last call on the revised
Algorithm Implementation Requirements
document, ending March 11. The draft is at:
On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Paul Wouters p...@cypherpunks.ca wrote:
On Feb 25, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, this is to start a 2-week working group last call on the revised
Algorithm Implementation Requirements
document, ending March 11. The
Hi,
First, I agree with Yaron that Diet-ESP looks more like a new protocol,
than like ESP extension. And in this case it must have its own
protocol number.
Then, I have some concerns how Diet-ESP will live with NATs.
The draft is silent about it. If we consider Diet-ESP as ESP
extension, then
Hi Paul,
It lists NULL ESP as a MUST. Wasn't this a MUST a leftover from the old
crypto export restrictions? While I think NULL ESP is a good debugging
tool, and a good replacement for AH in general, I don't think this is
really a MUST item (unless you would actually advise people to migrate
