Valery has posted an updated ID, and I have put it in for a 3 week IETF
Last Call (based on the complexity of the draft). Let us (authors, really)
if you have further comments.
Deb
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 6:41 PM Deb Cooley wrote:
> Because I basically sent the message twice (first time to a f
Because I basically sent the message twice (first time to a fictional IPSec
wg list), the authors and I have worked out the answers on the first
version of the message. I think everything is pretty well sorted, I
believe I'm just waiting for a new version so I can send it to IETF Last
Call. (chan
>
> On Nov 16, 2024, at 12:37, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> Deb Cooley writes:
>> Section 4.4.2: Is there a circumstance where distributing both ESP and AH
>> policies for the same set of Traffic Selectors would be sensible? If not,
>> should this be MUST NOT?
>
> I think this is aligning with t
To: Valery Smyslov ; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [IPsec] Re: draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2, public implementation
availability query
Hi Valery,
Thank you for the update. Is there any intention to provide an
implementation?
Best regards
Steffen
From: Valery Smyslov mailto:smyslov.i...
Hi Valery,
Thank you for the update. Is there any intention to provide an implementation?
Best regards
Steffen
From: Valery Smyslov
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 9:51 AM
To: Fries, Steffen (T CST) ; ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [IPsec] Re: draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2, public implementation
Hi Steffen,
Hi Valery, hi Brian,
I just wanted to restate my question if you are aware of a potential
implementation of G-IKEv2, which is publicly available and which we could
use for further investigation regarding extendibility?
I found information about a minimal implementation in the
Hi Valery, hi Brian,
I just wanted to restate my question if you are aware of a potential
implementation of G-IKEv2, which is publicly available and which we could use
for further investigation regarding extendibility?
I found information about a minimal implementation in the WG slides of IETF-9
