RFC and understand the issues. When in doubt they post a question here.
Dave Wierbowski
From: Yoav Nir
To: IPsecme WG
Date: 10/20/2010 04:10 AM
Subject:Re: [IPsec] draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-01 -- issue
193
Sent by:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org
Hi all
I have started this thread about this issue a week ago, and so far the only
responses we have had are from Yaron and Frederic. I would like to hear some
more, because this issue is very central.
Here's a summary of my take on this issue.
The draft does not mandate any particular method
This type of debate happened before and once again, it is critical to design a
secure protocol rather than a protocol that can/may be implemented securely.
The rejoinder is to
- offer recommended cookie computation methods
- highlight the risks of each method and the risks of doing something e
On Oct 17, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Frederic,
>
> I understand the scenario now and I agree that a solution is needed. But
> I have two issues, one general and one specific:
>
> - Even though there are no interoperability implications, I think we
> should specify the token
Hi Frederic,
I understand the scenario now and I agree that a solution is needed. But
I have two issues, one general and one specific:
- Even though there are no interoperability implications, I think we
should specify the token format. This will prevent people from making
some security-crit
