1) I'd rather not reference an individual draft in a charter? [it is listed in the datatracker as a related I-D and RFC section.]
2) There is an expectation that other debugging tools will be requested. The current milestone for the ESP Ping work is the one that is currently known. I already thought the milestones were pretty general. You want me to make them more general? I'm happy to do that, if that is what the IESG wants. Deb On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 7:12 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-ipsecme-13-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Just two comments on "The working group will work on documents to help > that. > One such tool could be the esp-ping protocol." > > 1) should there be a reference to the ESP-ping (especially as it appears > in the > milestones) ? > > 2) should there be a specific milestone on this kind of debugging tool ? By > reading this charter proposal, it appears that only esp-ping is the WG > choice. > > > >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
