Inline with
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Raj
Singh
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 5:02 AM
To: Yoav Nir
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] FW: I-D Action:draft-nir-ipsecme-childless-00.txt
Hi Yoav,
Please find my in
Hi Yoav/Raj,
I think its a good idea for the initiator to announce its capabilities
about supporting just IKE SA without child SA. The responder will then
act accordingly. Hence, this would make 4 scenarios:
[IKE_SA_ONLY] is the mode that will tell whether the device supports
bringing up IKE SA
Hi Raghu
I think in scenario (c) the initiator will propose a full child SA proposal,
and the responder will accept the IKE SA and reply with a NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
for the child SA.
From: Raghunandan P (raghup) [mailto:rag...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions Working
Group of the IETF.
Title : IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
Document Roadmap
Author(s)
Greetings again. I am a bit concerned that the discussion about non-WG drafts
is causing people to forget that we have two WG Last Calls in process.
- draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-ipv6-config is in WG Last Call that will end soon.
We have heard very little from anyone, even after we prodded the ipv6
> - There are no security implications: the application of PRF in
"SKEYSEED =
> prf(Ni | Nr, g^ir)" takes care of extracting the entropy even if both X
and
> the dependent Y are included in g^ir. So either way is fine.
Agreed, but as long as it's up in the air, the clincher for me is that
few,
I would like to call attention to the proposed revision of RFC 4753 at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-solinas-rfc4753bis-00.txt
This was an attempt to address the issues raised in this thread.
Comments on this are welcomed.
-- Jerome A. Solinas
__
I agree. The Y coordinate should not be part of the
calculation.
Russ
At 09:44 AM 7/6/2009, Scott C Moonen wrote:
> - There are no security
implications: the application of PRF in "SKEYSEED =
> prf(Ni | Nr, g^ir)" takes care of extracting the entropy even
if both X and
> the dependent Y are inc
I think a fix is already in the works:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-solinas-rfc4753bis/
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Hi Folks,
We have published a new version of the roadmap draft. Pleae take a
look at it and let us know if you have any comments or suggestions.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsecme-roadmap-02.txt
Thanks
Sheila and Suresh
___
IPse
Support
Jack
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> This is the beginning of a two-week WG Last Call, which will end July 18.
> The target status for this document is Proposed Standard. The current
> document is at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-traffic-visibil
11 matches
Mail list logo
