Re[2]: auditing - ISAKMP

[svakil@xxxxxxx]

>From section 5 of the ISAKMP draft:

This section suggests the logging of events to a system au-
dit file.  This action is controlled by a system security policy and is,
therefore, only a suggested action.
     

Why is it that some IPSec protocols make auditing mandatory, whereas others 
make it optional?  Shouldn't this be uniform for all IPSec protocols?

Sumit A. Vakil
Software Engineer, Routing Consulting Engineering
US Robotics, Access Corp.



Received: from usr.com (mail.usr.com) by robogate2.usr.com with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.02 Enterprise) id 343EE530; Thu, 3 Apr 97 11:52:19
-0600
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by usr.com (8.7.5/3.1.090690-US Robotics)
	id LAA05723; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:54:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id
RAA17159 for ipsec-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:39:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed,  2 Apr 97 21:47:43 GMT Daylight Time
From: Ran Atkinson  <rja@inet.org>
Subject: Re: auditing 
To: Bill Sommerfeld  <sommerfeld@apollo.hp.com>, Stephen Kent  <kent@bbn.com>
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
X-Mailer: Chameleon ATX 6.0, Standards Based IntraNet Solutions, NetManage Inc.
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <> 
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk