I support both documents being adopted, and separately. > On Feb 17, 2025, at 09:49, Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> 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? > > 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? > > 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/ > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
