Scott C Moonen writes:
> > I was thinking about the original initiator, not the exchange
> > initiator.
>
> Ok, but this then imposes an awkward new requirement to remember the
> "original original initiator," as it were. Today the initiator of the
> rekey becomes the original initiator of the re
At 11:01 AM +0300 9/9/10, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>Scott C Moonen writes:
>> > I was thinking about the original initiator, not the exchange
>> > initiator.
>>
>> Ok, but this then imposes an awkward new requirement to remember the
>> "original original initiator," as it were. Today the initiator of
On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Raj Singh writes:
>>> It's actually worse than that. If message #4 was missed, and 5-8 were
>>> received, then messages 5-8 are stored, but not processed. This has to be
>>> so, because suppose message 7 deletes the SA that was created in message
