Hi Tero, On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 04:49:15PM +0200, Tero Kivinen wrote: > We have draft-colitti-ipsecme-esp-ping [1] and > draft-antony-ipsecme-encrypted-esp-ping [2] both of which propose ESP > ping, but on the different level, and each of those provide different > level of debugging capabilities. > > The question I have for the WG, do we need both?
Yes. I support both(I am a co-author of one)/ > > If we only need one, which one? > > If we need both then should we go forward with both of them in > separate drafts, or combine them to one draft? At this stage, I believe separate documents would be the best path forward. Keeping them distinct allows us to focus on their respective use cases. That said, it would be great to have at least one common packet format that both drafts could align on. At Dublin I heard that Lorenzo was interested in supporting a common denominator packet format, which could help improve the user experience. We could do this after WD Adoption. > If you can send your comments to this thread by the end of month, so I > can then do WG adoption call/calls before Bangkok meeting. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-colitti-ipsecme-esp-ping/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-antony-ipsecme-encrypted-esp-ping/ -antony _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
