Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lwig-ikev2-minimal-02.txt> (Minimal IKEv2) to Informational RFC (fwd)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Paul Wouters writes:
> > We are trying to tell what features of IKEv2 MAY be left out, we do
> > not specify what MUST be left out.
> 
> Yes, but I was trying to address the confusion of what it means if
> something is "left out". If support for create_child_sa is left out,
> does that mean you need to reply to such a request with that exchange
> number, or use an informational exchange type. That is the confusion
> I see developers could have. To me it seems even if you do not want
> to support CREATE_CHILD_SA, you still need to implement answering a
> CREATE_CHILD_SA with an error notify.

Yes.

And in the exchanges section there is text saying that:

      In addition to those messages minimal IKEv2 implementation need
      to understand the CREATE_CHILD_SA request enough to generate an
      CREATE_CHILD_SA response containing the NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS error
      notify.

And this is expanded in the Other Exchanges section with text:

      Minimal implementations MUST be able to reply to incoming
      CREATE_CHILD_SA requests. Typical implementation will reject the
      CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges by sending NO_ADDITIONAL_SAS error
      notify back:

I think tihs is clear enough.

> > For example the other implementation we had did implement NAT-T,
> > mostly because he wanted to get the ESP packets inside the UDP
> > encapsulated packets over port 4500, and not mess up with privileged
> > port 500, and raw sockets. If the text would say NAT-T MUST NOT be
> > implemented, his implemented would not be following this spec...
> 
> I was only trying to say that IF you do not support CREATE_CHILD_SA,
> then you MUST still support enough of it to answer with a
> CREATE_CHILD_SA stating an error code. That is different from say,
> not supporting SESSION_RESUMPTION or Exchange Number 666.

I think the two sections I quoted above, do say that quite clearly. 

> Anyway, for the record. With the changes of me that you applied, I am
> fine with the document moving forward. Thanks for your work on this.

Ok, posting new version shortly which includes latest changes.
-- 
kivinen@xxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]