Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases

To: ipsec at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases
From: Keith Welter <welterk at us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:52:31 -0700
Delivered-to: ipsec at core3.amsl.com
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> If the error occurs on the > initiator, the notification MUST be returned in a separate > INFORMATIONAL exchange, with no other payloads.
Should an implementation be prohibited from sending an empty delete payload
in this case? I would prefer wording like the following:
"with no other payloads except an optional empty delete payload".

Keith Welter
IBM z/OS Communications Server Developer
1-415-545-2694 (T/L: 473-2694)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases
  - From: Yoav Nir

Prev by Date: Re: [IPsec] Ikev2 HA message Id Issue
Next by Date: Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases
Previous by thread: Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases
Next by thread: Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [IPsec] Issue #26: Missing treatment of error cases

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