Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Tero Kivinen
> Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2023 15:33
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Valery Smyslov ; draft-ietf-ipsecme-
> add-...@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [IPsec] Shepher
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com writes:
> [Med] Yes, the initiator may include a suggested ALPN (protocol) for
> example to specifically indicate it is looking for DoT (or another
> protocol). The initiator may omit the ADN, but only include service
> parameters (typically, ALPN) to indicate a
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Tero Kivinen
> Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2023 15:20
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Valery Smyslov ; draft-ietf-ipsecme-
> add-...@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [IPsec] Shepher
> > > Actually is there any point of having ADN Length and Authenticated
> > > Domain Name in CFG_REQUESTS ever? Why would someone calculate hashes
> > > with certain domain names with different hash algorithms? Perhaps we
> > > should define the format for CFG_REQUEST as follows:
> > >
> > >
> >
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com writes:
> > of the cases the information in IANA registries are already in the
> > normative reference RFCs
>
> RFCs may include stale/inaccurate values (e.g., new/deprecated
> values). The IANA registry is authoritative.
Yes, but you only need one value to actually
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Tero Kivinen
> Envoyé : mardi 31 janvier 2023 14:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Valery Smyslov ; draft-ietf-ipsecme-
> add-...@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [IPsec] Shepher
ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [IPsec] Shepherd review of the draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-
> ike
>
...
> > > I do not think the [Hash] is normative reference. I did not
> need to
> > > read and understand that to somewhat understand this document
> :-)
> >
> > We
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com writes:
> > > Also the text in Num Addresses indicate that it would be valid
> > to send
> > > CFG_REQUEST with proposed Service Priority, but having Num
> > Addresses
> > > set to zero?
> > >
> > > Is this intended? I.e., is the client allowed to request data,
> > but
Valery Smyslov writes:
> > In section 3.2 it is not clear what the length of the Hash Algorithm
> > Identifiers fields is. It contains list of hash algorithms or one hash
> > algorithm if this is response, but it is not clear what is response.
>
> What was meant is that a list of hashes is sent
f.org
> Objet : RE: [IPsec] Shepherd review of the draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-
> ike
>
> Hi Tero,
>
> thank you for the review. Please see inline.
>
> > Here are some my review comments
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 13:49, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Tero,
>
> thank you for the review. Please see inline.
>
> > Here are some my review comments while reading
> > draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-ike:
> >
> > --
> > The text in
Hi Tero,
thank you for the review. Please see inline.
> Here are some my review comments while reading
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-ike:
>
> --
> The text in section 3.1 should say that if length is 0, then no
> Service Priority,
12 matches
Mail list logo
