Subject: Re: [MSEC] GSAKMP issue 12: Policy Token Payload table 9

From: Uri Meth <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:31:11 -0400

By looking at this table again, it is apparent that the values in this
table are out of date, and correctly stated there is no designation of
the MUST PT to be implemented.

The table will be fixed to show correct values for types of Policy
tokens.  We are still working this through, but the values will be
something of the sort:

0 GSAKMP v1 Policy Token (pointing to the current PT draft)
1 Another Policy Token format (pointing to that draft)
etc.

My understanding is that there is some offline discussions (Hugh and
Goerge) in trying to determine another minimalistic token which might 
take to the MUST to implement case.

UM

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 08:27:36AM -0400, George Gross wrote:
> 3 of 4 e-mails resent
> 
> GSAKMP issue 12
> 
> Section and relevant text passage:
> 
> 6.3 Policy Token Payload, table 9
> 
> Comment/issue description:
> 
> Did not state the "Group" policy token type is the default mandatory to implement value.
> The "Auxillary" type is not defined, when is it used?
> 
> Suggested issue resolution:
> 
> elaborate on how there can be various policy token types, indicate "Group" is the default.
> refer to a Normative Reference that defines the "Group" policy token.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> msec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

-- 
Uri Meth                            (410) 872 - 1515 x233 (voice)
SPARTA, Inc.                        (410) 872 - 8079      (fax)
7075 Samuel Morse Drive             [email-masked]
Columbia, MD 21046

_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec