Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 160: Use of Replay Protection

[Scott G. Kelly (s.kelly]

Agree.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Clancy <tcc [at] umd.edu>
>Sent: Jul 28, 2008 9:09 PM
>To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <pcalhoun [at] cisco.com>
>Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com, Pasi.Eronen [at] nokia.com, clancy [at] 
>ltsnet.net
>Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 160: Use of Replay Protection
>
>Saying that DTLS replay detection MUST be used is okay with me.  Section 
>4.5.3 has text that assumes DTLS replay detection is being used.
>
>--
>t. charles clancy, ph.d.                 eng.umd.edu/~tcc
>electrical & computer engineering, university of maryland
>
>
>Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote:
>> Here is Pasi's comment:
>> 
>>    Replay protection is an optional feature in RFC 4347. Should this
>> document say 
>>    something about it? (e.g. MUST use?)
>> 
>> Given the nature of the question, I would like to defer to Scott or
>> Charles. I recall us going back and forth on this, and would like their
>> guidance before we propose a change.
>> 
>> PatC
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
>> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>_________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
>http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>
>Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap