Hi,
Thank you, Laurent, for your feedback. We initially believed we could reply
quickly, but due to scheduling conflicts, we now anticipate providing a
response and addressing them by next week at the latest.
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 9:01 AM Laurent Toutain wrote:
> Dear Sandra an
Dear Sandra and Daniel,
Sorry to have been not so responsive, but I missed this version of the
document.
This version is much clearer, but I need to understand more about IKE to
make the link between IKE and SCHC.
It is not clear to me if you use regular information or you carry them into
extensi
Hi,
Please find the updated drafts that outline diet-esp [1] and its
corresponding IKEv2 extension [2]. We extend our gratitude for the
feedback received from both the IPsec and SCHC perspectives during the
Working Group Last Call (WGLC).
We believe that these versions adequately address all
Hi,
A newly updated version of the Diet-ESP description has been released
[1]. This iteration focuses on its compatibility with SCHC and includes
more explicit examples in the appendix. We look forward to engaging in
further discussions within the SCHC Working Group next week.
We welcome any
Hi,
We anticipate that the issues will be concluded by that time ;-)
However, it would still be beneficial to address any outstanding issues
or to offer feedback to SCHC. We are pleased to present and will propose
slides for that occasion.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2025-sc
Hello Daniel
we are cancelling the next SCHC interim but the one on Feb 25th is open and
if you like we can have that discussion then?
all the best
Pascal
Le lun. 27 janv. 2025 à 21:14, Daniel Migault a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> For clarification we do acknowledge that SCHC required additional work.
Hi,
For clarification we do acknowledge that SCHC required additional work. We
are definitely willing to be more aligned to SCHC and more than happy to
work on it with you. We will contact you to arrange a meeting.
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:40 AM Laurent Toutain wrote:
> Hi Danie
Hi Daniel,
May be it is clear from a IPsec perspective, but not from a SCHC
perspective.
I think that to be called SCHC, the compression description in your draft
must be aligned with the vocabulary on RFC8724 and forthcoming
architecture. The notion of rule looks ambiguous in your draft, looks m
