On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:02:12AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > draft-ietf-taps-transport-security is currently in IESG evaluation, and in
> > > its description of IKEv2 with ESP it asserts that "IKEv2 [RFC7296] and ESP
> > > [RFC4303] together form the modern IPsec protocol suite th
Does IPsec not also include AH as an option still ?
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:02:12AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > draft-ietf-taps-transport-security is currently in IESG evaluation, and in
> > > its description of IKEv2 with ESP it asserts that "IKEv2 [RFC7296] and ESP
> > > [RFC4
L
> On Apr 9, 2020, at 18:56, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Does IPsec not also include AH as an option still ?
We don’t mention the Protocol That Shall Not Be Named, and recommend ESP-NULL
instead.
Paul
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://ww
Haha. So you have to choose whether you want a title that a Muggle understand
or not ;-)
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 07:07:00PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> L
> > On Apr 9, 2020, at 18:56, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >
> > ???Does IPsec not also include AH as an option still ?
>
>
Hi Toerless,
> Does IPsec not also include AH as an option still ?
AH is still formally a part of IPsec, but it is next to extinct in real
life.
I see no ambiguity in renaming the section, since the text clearly says
that IKEv2+ESP is a "modern IPsec protocol suite", which is right.
Regards,
Val
