At 11:03 AM -0800 11/17/09, Gregory Lebovitz wrote:
inline...
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Stephen Kent
<<mailto:k...@bbn.com>k...@bbn.com> wrote:
At 7:50 PM +0530 11/16/09, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
This is an implementation specific optimization that has already
been solved in multiple implementations.
Cheers, Manav
Is the phrase "implementation specific" a euphemism for non-standard?
GML> Or perhaps, a local security policy decision to ease up on the
size of the enforcement window -- aka ease security requirements --
in order to get more QoS enforcement capability -- aka convenience
-- ??
4301 contains We have explicit directions on how to use multiple SAs
when the peers know that they want to send traffic with different QoS
parameters. This appears to be an instance where the middle boxes are
to examining traffic, and putting in into different QoS queues. That
raises the question of how a receiver would know that this is
happening, so that a bigger enforcement window is needed.
ESP and AH already allow a receiving peer to select any size window
that it wants, bigger than the specified minimum. So that is not an
issue.
Steve
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
