Subject: [Ipsec] IKEV2 questions

From: Fukumoto Atsushi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:57:14 +0900

draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-17.txt states in section 3.3.2: "If the
initiator wishes to make use of the transform optional to the
responder, it includes a transform substructure with transform ID = 0
as one of the options."

and then:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   For Transform Type 5 (Extended Sequence Numbers), defined Transform
   IDs are:

          Name                                Number
          No Extended Sequence Numbers       0
          Extended Sequence Numbers          1
          RESERVED                           2 - 65535
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is: Am I right to understand that, if the initiator sends
a transform with Transform Type 5 and Transform ID 0, it means No
Extended Sequence Numbers, rather than Transform Optional to The
Responder?

Another question: section 2.18 states: "New initiator and responder
SPIs are supplied in the SPI fields."  Which SPI fields does this
refer to?

					FUKUMOTO Atsushi
					[email-masked]

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

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:18:04 +0200

Comments inline...

> responder, it includes a transform substructure with transform ID = 0

Yes, you are right.  Sending Type 5 ID 0 means no ESN.  Type 5 ID 1 
means ESN is mandatory.  Sending both means it's optional.  If you look 
up the archive, there was a lively discussion about this last week.

> SPIs are supplied in the SPI fields."  Which SPI fields does this

This refers to the SPI fields of the Proposal structure in the SA 
payload.  See section 3.3.1.

---

From: Fukumoto Atsushi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:22:02 +0900

> up the archive, there was a lively discussion about this last week.

Then I have to wonder why it is that way?  It looks like replacing No
ESN to some other value and ID=0 to mean Optional seems to be more
consistent with other transform types.

					FUKUMOTO Atsushi

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:45:52 +0200

> consistent with other transform types.

Or simply make it mandatory, so it cannot be left out. That will work
with existing implementations too.
-- 
[email-masked]