Subject: [Ipsec] 2401bis-v03 fig. 3 incorrect/unintuitive?

From: Lars Völker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:20:29 +0200

Hi!

I think figure 3 on page 50 of 2401bis-v03 is not correct or at least seems
unintuitive to me. 

On the right hand side, the IPsec protected traffic is PROTECTed again?
Shouldn't this be UNPROTECT or so? In the opposite case (fig. 2 p. 43) the
inverse action is called PROTECT too, which is really a protection.

Lars

-- 
Lars Völker <[email-masked]>
Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
Zirkel 2, 76128 Karlsruhe
Phone: +49 721 - 608 6397
Fax:   +49 721 - 38 80 97

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:53:14 -0400

>inverse action is called PROTECT too, which is really a protection.

Lars,

We can change the box in both figures to say 
"APPLY" vs. "PROTECT" to try to minimize 
confusion.

Steve

---

From: Lars Völker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:54:21 +0200

Hi!

> "APPLY" vs. "PROTECT" to try to minimize
I think PROCESS and PROCESS might be a good idea too, since this is the verb
the draft uses anyway in 5.2 3a (p. 51). The main confusion is that in both
cases PROTECT was used and I got the feeling that the decapsulation of ESP
is not really the same as protecting it (=encapsulation). When also
considering IPcomp as possible protocol, protection seems to be an even
worse choice.

I feel PROCESS and PROCESS would be good, or we could use ENCAPSULATE and
DECAPSULATE, even that with AH transport mode this option does not
completely fit.

Lars