I agree with Jerome's opinion. Let's leave 19, 20, and 21 the way
they are. If there is confusion between the 2 RFCs than let's fix it
in a -bis favoring the former of the two.
Dan.
On Fri, January 22, 2010 10:48 am, Jerome A. Solinas wrote:
> Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> First off, thank you for
Hi Paul,
Please see below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:28
> To: Yaron Sheffer; ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Issue #157: Illustrate the SA payload with a
> diagram
>
> At 11:57 PM +0200 1/22/10, Yar
At 8:06 PM +0200 1/23/10, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > Further, is there a good reason for you to have not included an ESN
>> transform on Proposal #1? Section 3.3 says "The number of different
>> transforms is generally determined by the Protocol. ... ESP generally
>> has three: ESN, an encryption alg
