Re: #23 [*] KE interoperability (section 6.8)
"KAMADA Ken'ichi" <[email protected]> Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:12:12 +0900
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.kink |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20050222151212IS%[email protected]> |
At Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:30:38 +0900, Shoichi Sakane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > so I would like to propose the following process. any idea ? > > > > > > All node conformed to the document MAY implement the KE payload > > > handling. If a node receives a KE payload, and the receiver does not > > > support the KE handling, and does not want to proceed the negotiation, > > > then the receiver SHOULD send a Notify payload of the type > > > NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN to the sender. If the receiver wants to keep the > > > negotiation without the KE payload handling, then the receiver sends > > > a response witout a KE payload. the sender MAY reject it by its policy > > > in this case. > > I meant the sender was the initiator. > > > The sender (I assume you meant the initiator) can't reject it > > because the ACK message can't carry it. > > the one does not need to proceed the ACK handling. as referencing to > the section 7.2, when the initiator reject it, then the initiator > SHOULD re-send a CREATE message without KE payload. How the responder distinguish it from a brand new CREATE? Without distinction, the responder can't know whether the first CREATE succeeded or not. -- KAMADA Ken'ichi <[email protected]>