Hi Paul, For my clarification, could you please state who are the people on each side of this? I've gone through all emails I have on this thread and I only see Yoav's email supporting the second approach. It is entirely possible that my email isn't working as it should - but, I'd appreciate a pointer to the second email that supported removing the one RT exchange.
Thanks, Vidya > -----Original Message----- > From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 10:16 AM > To: IPsecme WG > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Issue #98: 1 or two round trips for resumption > > <co-chair hat on> > > Greetings again. Of the people who replied, two favored mandating two > round trips, and one favored keeping the current one round trip. That > (anemic) result, plus the comment that lead to this thread, leads me to > say that we need to change draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-resumption to > require two round trips. > > Draft authors: please prepare a -03 with only the two-round-trip > solution, and pull out the text about the one-round-trip option. > > If someone really objects to this, please prepare a personal Internet > Draft that lists exactly how you would change the current -03 draft to > cover all the security issues that were brought forward. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
