[Ipsec] traffic selector with protocol = opaque in IKEv2

To: "IPsec WG (E-mail)" <ipsec at ietf.org>
Subject: [Ipsec] traffic selector with protocol = opaque in IKEv2
From: "James Huang" <James.Huang at watchguard.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:49:14 -0800
List-help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IP Security <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: ipsec-bounces at ietf.org

In rfc2401bis, the protocol field in a SAD entry or a SPD entry may be opaque.  However, the latest ikev2 draft does not specify how to represent opaque as the value for the protocol field in the traffic selector.  Am I missing something?

Thanks,
James Huang

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Follow-Ups:
- [Ipsec] traffic selector with protocol = opaque in IKEv2
  - From: Tero Kivinen

Prev by Date: RE: [Ipsec] Query for IPv6 ICV
Next by Date: Re: [Ipsec] 2401bis fragment checking for BYPASS/DISCARD
Previous by thread: [Ipsec] UDP-Encapsulating and PMTU
Next by thread: [Ipsec] traffic selector with protocol = opaque in IKEv2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Ipsec] traffic selector with protocol = opaque in IKEv2

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.