I agree.
On Dec 26, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Valery Smyslov sva...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yaron,
oh, you've catched one more error in this text - it mixed up terms ticket
(used in RFC5723 as Session Resumption ticket) and token
(used in RFC6290 as QCD token). I din't notice that. You are right,
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5723], the situation is
similar. The responder, which is necessarily
happy new year.
Yoav
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error
, 2012 8:11 AM
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] Error in RFC6290
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5723], the situation is
similar. The responder, which is necessarily the peer that has
crashed
Hi,
RFC6290 (Quick Crash Detection) contains an error. In Section 4.3 it states:
For session resumption, as specified in [RFC5723], the situation is
similar. The responder, which is necessarily the peer that has
crashed, SHOULD send a new ticket within the protected payload of the
