Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 160: Use of Replay Protection

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:33:23 -0400 (EDT)

Agree.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Clancy <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Jul 28, 2008 9:09 PM
>To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>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

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap