Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ike-nochild-00.txt

Hi Yoav, 1. In section5, why we need N[ADDITIONAL_TS_POSSIBLE] when we want to create child sa? 2. Also, please mention clearly in draft that what should be the behavior of responder if a faulty initiator sends modified IKE_AUTH request, even if responder has not send IKE_AUTH_NO_CHILD VID payload

[IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ike-nochild-00.txt

Hi all Recently there's been some discussions about creating an IKE SA without child SAs (on purpose). I'm still not entirely convinced that this is necessary, but I have submitted this draft, and would like to hear comments about it. Does it fill the need that some people on this mailing lis

[IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ike-nochild-00.txt

Hi all Recently there's been some discussions about creating an IKE SA without child SAs (on purpose). I'm still not entirely convinced that this is necessary, but I have submitted this draft, and would like to hear comments about it. Does it fill the need that some people on this mailing lis