Subject: Re: [nemo] IPsec for payload packets

From: Takaaki Moriya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:54:17 +0900

Hi all,

I'm sorry for bringing up this issue again.

I work for TAHI project, and I would like some predetermined
policies/entries when conducting conformance and interoperability tests.
Therefore, we are now preparing NEMO interoperability test scenario
including the additional "SA9 and SA10" policies which I mentioned.
We consider that these policies shuold be recommended for
interoperability tests. 

I would appreciate your informing us of any comments or advices you may
have.

Thank you very much in advance.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:59:09 +0100
Francis Dupont <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>    I understand what you mean, but I have been considering this issue from
>    the viewpoint of interoperability.
> 
> => the answer is simple: the policies (I use this term because the formal
> SPD entries don't include common things like SA sharing control) must
> match or something will fail. So when there are possible choices (and
> when you consider SA sharing issues there are likely some) one must
> take care to configure compatible policies...
>    
>    I mean, since RFC3963 just refers to RFC3776 regarding IPsec, I wonder
>    whether all the developers can expect the same (or equivalent) SPD
>    entries.
> 
> => no but all the developers should propose enough or it will be possible
> to find no compatible policies...
>    
> Regards
> 
> [email-masked]

-- 
Takaaki Moriya <[email-masked]>