Hi Valery, On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 09:28:05AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Tero, > > > Valery Smyslov writes: > > > Hi Antony, > > > Combining with the proposal above: > > > > > > Number Name Reference > > > 0 32-bit Sequential Numbers (SN) [RFC7296] [this > > > ID] > > > 1 64-bit Sequential Numbers (ESN) [RFC7296] [this ID] > > > 2 32-bit Unspecified [this ID] > > > 3-65535 Reserved [RFC7296] > > > > > > And the name of transform can be: > > > > > > "Sequence Number Generation (SNG)" or something like that. > > > > I like that. > > > > As a WG chair, I agree with concers people have with this document > Updating the > > RFC7296 and doing this kind of change in the large document which would > not be > > updating IKEv2 otherwise. > > > > So I would think it would be best if you could cut & paste the this change > from the > > g-ikev2 document to separate document, and post it as internet-draft (as a > working > > group draft, as g-ikev2 where this is taken frm is already wg draft), and > I can start > > working group last call of that immediately. Then we can ask for > publication of that > > new draft after WGLC is done. As the g-ikev2 draft is quite big anyways > and we do > > have longer IETF last call for it anyways, I do not think this would cause > any real > > delays for the publication of the g-ikev2, but would make several people > happy... :-) > > > > Valery, can you get this document done? > > OK, will do this.
Perhaps one more point to consider adding to the new document: when the sequence number is not monotonous, IP-TFC (Section 2.2.3 of RFC 9347) cannot support fragmentation. It assumes that sequence numbers are incremented by one. If a receiver notices a forward jump of three or more, the reassembly code will drop the previous partial packets." -antony _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
