Re: [IPsec] Clarification on my comments during the WG about possible KE payloads > 64k

Hi, > I think the best way to make them work is to keep the individual > payload length less than 64k, but QSKE (or whatever the new payload is > called) so that it can provide separate pieces of actual KE payload. That's exactly what I suggested in

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv

Thank you Scott for your comments. I understand the first comment as a text clarification to comment on the mechanism provided by section 3.5 of RFC6407 and explicitely mention that is does not apply here. Does the replacement below addresses your concern ? OLD: Section 3.5 of [RFC6407]

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv

Thanks a lot Scott for the response. I am publishing the draft asap. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) < sfluh...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > *From:* mglt.i...@gmail.com *On Behalf Of *Daniel > Migault > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:22

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv

From: mglt.i...@gmail.com On Behalf Of Daniel Migault Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 1:22 PM To: Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) Cc: IPsecme WG (ipsec@ietf.org) Subject: Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv Thank you Scott for

[IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-02.txt

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 WG of the IETF. Title : Implicit IV for Counter-based Ciphers in Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Authors