Dan McDonald writes:
> Am reading this right?
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:22:51AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > At 1:10 PM +0200 2/19/10, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> > >Yoav Nir writes:
> > >> Hi all.
> > >>
> > >> There are only three issues this time, because this is the last batch.
> > >>
> > > >
Am reading this right?
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:22:51AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:10 PM +0200 2/19/10, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> >Yoav Nir writes:
> >> Hi all.
> >>
> >> There are only three issues this time, because this is the last batch.
> >>
> > > Issue #173 - Trigger packets should not
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Issue #173: Trigger packets should not be required
I support this change.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Dan McDonald wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:49:11PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> In a few places in the new section 2.23.1 in IKEv2bis, it says that on
I support this change.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Dan McDonald wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:49:11PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> In a few places in the new section 2.23.1 in IKEv2bis, it says that one
>> must have a trigger packet when starting negotiation. This assumption
>> should
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:49:11PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> In a few places in the new section 2.23.1 in IKEv2bis, it says that one
> must have a trigger packet when starting negotiation. This assumption
> should be removed so as not to cause new requirements in IKEv2bis: there is
> no requirem
