Subject: Re: [IPsec] Relating the two ESP-null documents

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:50:47 +0300

Paul Hoffman writes:
> At 3:50 PM +0300 8/24/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> >So would this text be added to both documents or what?
> 
> It should go in both. That way, an implementer a year from now who
> comes across one of the RFCs will both find out about the other and
> be clear on the relationship. 
> 
> >If so where
> >(between section 2 and 3 in esp-null-heuristics and after or replacing
> >section 1.2 of traffic-visibility draft)?
> 
> My preference for esp-null-heuristics is that this applicability
> statement be section 1.1, and that what is now section 2 (the 2119
> language) become section 1.2. 

Posted new version of the draft now to the repository.

Changes are:

  - Added applicability statement
  - Processed comments from Yaron
    - Added comment about UDP-encapsulated ESP and IPsec flows to new
      section 7.
    - Fixed typos
    - Added text to security considerations section that attacker can
      bypass inspection by other encapsulation methods too.
  - Processed comments from David McGrew
    - Added text about IV not necessarely being random
    - Added text about minimal padding
  - Removed the "XXX TBA -- including possible chunk-specific
    checking" from SCTP section (if someone will provide me text about
    that I will add it).
  - Added some more comments to the pseudocode
-- 
[email-masked]