Re: [IPsec] WG adoption call for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis

Hi, as co-author I support adoption of this document. Regards, Valery. > This is the start of 1.5 week WG adoption call for this document, > ending 2021-02-07 (just before our IPsecME session in IETF 110). > Please send your reply about whether you support adopting this > document as WG document

Re: [IPsec] Review of the draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-02

Hi Tero, thanks for reviewing the draft. > I quickly reviewed the draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-02, or more > accurately I reviewed the diff between the rfc8229 and this draft [1] > > During the review I found this text: > >Additionally, since TCP headers are longer than UDP headers,

Re: [IPsec] Review of the draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-02

Valery Smyslov writes: > > In section 7.3 there is text saying: > > > > Note that if this TCP connection is > > closed, the Responder MUST NOT include the Initiator's TCP port > > into the Cookie calculation (*), since the Cookie will be returned > >

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Michael Richardson > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > Christian Hopps wrote: >>> * I'm glad you recommend PLMTUD, I suggest PMTUD is dead. How do use >>> PLMTUD? Will you tell us later in the document, or is that new work? >>> (does not look like you tell us)

Re: [IPsec] WGLC for draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 6:11 AM, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for the review, q's, comments, and changes inline.. > >> On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:45 PM, Michael Richardson > > wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> >> I have read draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptf

Re: [IPsec] Review of the draft-smyslov-ipsecme-rfc8229bis-02

Hi Tero, so, what is the outcome? Do you think we should add a recommendation not to include source IP address in cookie calculation when TCP is in use? Regards, Valery. > Valery Smyslov writes: > > > In section 7.3 there is text saying: > > > > > >Note that if th