Subject: [IPsec] New issue: inconsistency in the section 2.9

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 15:29:10 +0200

The section 2.9 has text which says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.9.  Traffic Selector Negotiation

   ... Since the two endpoints may be configured by different
   people, the incompatibility may persist for an extended period even
   in the absence of errors.  It also allows for intentionally different
   configurations, as when one end is configured to tunnel all addresses
   and depends on the other end to have the up-to-date list.

   ...

   ... This case
   will occur only when the initiator and responder are configured
   differently from one another.  If the initiator and responder agree
   on the granularity of tunnels, the initiator will never request a
   tunnel wider than the responder will accept.  Such misconfigurations
   should be recorded in error logs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So the first part says that traffic selectors may be different on
initiator's and responder's policy and that such a configuration may
be intentional.

Then the second part calls such configuration misconfigurations and
require such events to be logged.

This is bit inconsistent, and I think the second part should be
modified so that the last sentence is removed, or rephrased. 
-- 
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:57:10 -0800

Does anyone have an opinion on Tero's suggestion to remove the sentence?

--Paul Hoffman

At 3:29 PM +0200 12/1/09, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>IPsec mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

---

From: Scott C Moonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:13:12 -0500

I'm ok with removing the sentence.

Scott Moonen ([email-masked])
z/OS Communications Server TCP/IP Development
http://www.linkedin.com/in/smoonen

From:
Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
To:
Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date:
12/10/2009 03:00 PM
Subject:
Re: [IPsec] #125: inconsistency in the section 2.9

--Paul Hoffman