Re: [IPsec] For Ahmad's benefit

Hi Lakshminath,

As I said, all the text you captured assumed the ticket contain a value
NOT a reference. Please take a look at Pasi's posting and my reply.
Basically in order to be clear enough and reduce a lot of exchange, the
draft is written with one type of ticket is in mind. "TICKET with VALUE"

I suggest that the draft be rewritten with both types of tickets in mind
as the draft itself ALLOWS.

Cheers!

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:49 AM
> To: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: [IPsec] For Ahmad's benefit
> 
> It's still possible that I haven't read my own draft.  I just 
> wrote it :).  So, for Ahmad's benefit, here are some excerpts:
> 
> "This document specifies a new IKEv2 exchange type called
>     IKE_SESSION_RESUME whose value is TBA by IANA.  This exchange is
>     somewhat similar to the IKE_AUTH exchange, and results in the
>     creation of a Child SA. "
> 
> Here is how it looks like and you might notice the similarity 
> to IKE_AUTH:
> 
> "HDR, Ni, N(TICKET_OPAQUE), [N+,]
>           SK {IDi, [IDr,] SAi2, TSi, TSr [, CP(CFG_REQUEST)]} -->"
> 
> 
> "4.2.1. Protection of the IKE_SESSION_RESUME Exchange
> 
> 
>     The two messages of this exchange are protected by a 
> "subset" IKE SA.
>     The key material is derived from the ticket, as follows:"
> 
> 
> So, at this point, I wonder whether the question was about 
> how the Session resumption exchange is protected.
> 
> best,
> Lakshminath
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> 
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec