Yaron Sheffer writes: > We have one working group draft dealing with new ESP-null implementations. > We have another draft dealing with unchanged ESP-null implementations. I > suggest we don't confuse everybody by adding a third category: > just-a-little-tiny-bit changed implementations. In other words, I think the > second change is *not* a good idea.
Partly agree, which is why I have not yet added that to the document. On the other hand "just-a-little-tiny-bit" change is something that does not break interoperability, i.e. even if sender does those changes, complient recipients will be able to process packets normally, as they are still completely valid ESP packets, only difference is that sender decided to use the option in ESP where you can add more padding if you want, and/or decided to select GCM IVs in a way which makes them look like random. Both of those implementation hints would be something that would not require any changes for the recipient. That is why I haven't already completely ruled out adding that kind of implementation hints for sender section to future drafts. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
