Hi Antony,
> Currently, the draft aims to maintain consistency with USE_TRANSPORT,
> USE_AGGFRAG (RFC 9347), and USE_WESP_MODE (RFC 5840), as they
> follow a similar request response structure. That is why I chose this
> approach—though I acknowledge there may be room for refinemen
Hi Wei PAN,
Thanks for your support.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 10:18:13AM +, Panwei (William) wrote:
> I've read the draft and support its adoption.
>
> A few comments:
> 1. Section 1.2 should use the new boilerplate for requirements language.
> 2. In Section 2,
>If the responder declines
I've read the draft and support its adoption.
A few comments:
1. Section 1.2 should use the new boilerplate for requirements language.
2. In Section 2,
If the responder declines and does
not include the USE_BEET_MODE notification in the response, the child
SA may be established without BE
I support adoption.
On 2025-02-24 17:57, Michael Richardson wrote:
Tero Kivinen wrote:
> This email starts two week working group adoption call for
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor
I read it back in November, and I support adoption.
> of
Tero Kivinen wrote:
> This email starts two week working group adoption call for
> draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor
I read it back in November, and I support adoption.
> of adoption this document as working group document, please reply to
>
Hi,
I support adoption of this document.
Regards,
Valery.
> This email starts two week working group adoption call for
> draft-antony-ipsecme-
> iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor of adoption this document as
> working group document, please reply to this email and say so. And es
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Tero Kivinen wrote:
This email starts two week working group adoption call for
draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode [1] document. If you are in favor
of adoption this document as working group document, please reply to
this email and say so. And especially if you have any ob
