Re: AD review: draft-ietf-kink-kink [section 1-4]

>>>>> "KAMADA" == KAMADA Ken'ichi <[email protected]> writes:

    KAMADA> At Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:31:08 -0500,
    KAMADA> Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>  Section 4.3:
    >> 
    >> [**] I need explicit review from the IPsec reviewer of this
    >> section to make sure it is compatible with 2401bis.  IN
    >> addition, any differences between how this works and how IKE
    >> would set up the same SA need to be called out.  It is fine for
    >> there to be differences, but I want to make sure the working
    >> group explicitly decided the differences are a good thing.
    >> 
    >> I'm somewhat concerned that 4.3 is not specific enough to
    >> describe exactly what key gets set up.  I.E. I'm concerned it
    >> may not be detailed enough for interoperable implementations.

    KAMADA> Section 4.3 describes the message flow and section 7.3
    KAMADA> describes the message structure.  Differences between KINK
    KAMADA> and IKE is described in section 7.3 (and also in section
    KAMADA> 4.4.1, 5.1.7, and 6).  I think they are enough to be
    KAMADA> interoperable (at least regarding SA setup).  Is your
    KAMADA> concern resolved if section 4 referes to section 7?

I think everything is clear except for what key ends up getting used
for the resulting SA.  I think that needs specific text.

--Sam