Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 4, 2014, at 17:55, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>
>
> Section 2.2 says that “As peer identity is meaningless in this case,
> Identification Data SHOULD be omited from ID Payload”([1]), and even if sent,
> it MUST be ignored by IKE. So it’s really not provided.
There wasn
The connections are host to host only, all ports, no gateways. You can call it
no PAD, or call this policy the PAD. I don't see a problem with mapping auth
none to this policy?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 4, 2014, at 16:03, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> Valery Smy
On Jun 4, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> Valery Smyslov wrote: >> Paul ps. i also still
>>> prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH", as to me NULL >> looks more like an
>>> error while "none" conveys intent.
>>>
I remember it. However I'm still waitin
Paul Wouters wrote:
>> Valery Smyslov wrote: >> Paul ps. i also still
>> prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH", as to me NULL >> looks more like an
>> error while "none" conveys intent.
>>
>> > I remember it. However I'm still waiting for other's opinions on
>> this. > Namin
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Michael Richardson wrote:
Valery Smyslov wrote:
>> Paul ps. i also still prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH", as to me NULL
>> looks more like an error while "none" conveys intent.
> I remember it. However I'm still waiting for other's opinions on this.
> Naming i
Valery Smyslov wrote:
>> Paul ps. i also still prefer AUTH_NONE over "NULL AUTH", as to me NULL
>> looks more like an error while "none" conveys intent.
> I remember it. However I'm still waiting for other's opinions on this.
> Naming is not a problem.
I prefer AUTH_NONE over "N
On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> While
> presenting it would be a one slide presentation, it would be good
> to get this unstuck and have people review it, as I'm waiting on the
> IANA registry code point for this :/
The Toronto meeting is more than six weeks away. If someone wa
I've already asked co-chairs for a slot to present null-auth
in a private e-mail.
Great :)
We should probably add a comment about rekeying. If the responder
becomes the initiator, it might run into issues. Possibly an entity
that did not authenticate the peer should not initiate a rekey.
Reke
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I've already asked co-chairs for a slot to present null-auth
in a private e-mail.
Great :)
We should probably add a comment about rekeying. If the responder
becomes the initiator, it might run into issues. Possibly an entity
that did not authenticate
I've already asked co-chairs for a slot to present null-auth
in a private e-mail.
Valery.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Yoav Nir wrote:
Well, there’s my puzzles draft ([1]).
There is also null-auth [2] which I think has not been presented. While
presenting it would be a one slide presentation, it wou
On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Yoav Nir wrote:
Well, there’s my puzzles draft ([1]).
There is also null-auth [2] which I think has not been presented. While
presenting it would be a one slide presentation, it would be good
to get this unstuck and have people review it, as I'm waiting on the
IANA registry
11 matches
Mail list logo
