I am confident that we can adopt both documents. I trust that the teams can collaborate to establish the most common format, and if necessary, ultimately merge the documents.
Yours, Daniel On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 4:00 AM Antony Antony <ant...@phenome.org> wrote: > 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 > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
