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

On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 00:04, KAMADA Ken'ichi wrote:

> IKE does not unfortunately specify when an implementation adds SAs
> to the SAD.  And KINK's optimistic approach (2-way handshake) is
> new to IKEv1.  Therefore KINK specifies it in detail.
> I think the detailed description in section 4.3 is necessary.
> 
> I think SA setup sequence in 3-way handshake should also be written,
> in addition to the current descriptions.


Right -- this was one of the huge deficiencies of IKE
which we were very intent to deal with. KINK is actually
has a *lot* of things corrected -- things that we hopefully
also corrected in IKEv2. Which is why it's so annoying when
it is suggested that KINK do it the IKEv2 way -- KINK
led the way here, not the other way around. KINK should
have been an RFC way before IKEv2 was issued.

		Mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUAQgOLqbMsDAj/Eq++AQKmLgQAl71QZRUDkkoPNGTATSnL2UyJnim45LEZ
xj3y8LlBzi7rviF1zYzHzJzRU3i3Momv1nOMnQA6nHTJk5vMR0qK/UE91UA2D24D
hcIOuFME7Nc6Phnx+7X1WhIwVvfdCgYvPYqUyoEmaeaYm+kAgz7p/DnLokkJeISx
dlcbf3lyejE=
=jWhC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----