Hi,
During the last IETF meeting it was agreed that we would move quickly to
resolve any issues that Tero had left, and get this document submitted to the
IESG. So asking again if the new version (published prior to the meeting)
satisfied the issues so we can move forward?
Thanks,
Chris.
> On
Christian Hopps writes:
> During the last IETF meeting it was agreed that we would move
> quickly to resolve any issues that Tero had left, and get this
> document submitted to the IESG. So asking again if the new version
> (published prior to the meeting) satisfied the issues so we can move
> forw
I checked the WGLC email threads on the list, and I think consensus
was to move this draft forward, but there were some issues pointed up
during the last call that still do require to be addressed before
that.
I moved this draft now to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up: Proposed
Standard state wi
There was no issues raised during the WGLC, so this document we will
be starting the publication process of this draft soon.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Tero Kivinen writes:
> This is the start of 2 week WGLC on the
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke document, ending 2021-08-10.
>
> Please submit your comments to the list, also send a note if you have
> reviewed the document, so we can see how many people are interested in
> getting this out.
This is the start of 2 week WGLC on the draft-ietf-ipsecme-yang-iptfs
document, ending 2021-08-31.
Please submit your comments to the list, also send a note if you have
reviewed the document, so we can see how many people are interested in
getting this out.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
This is the start of 2 week WGLC on the draft-ietf-ipsecme-mib-iptfs
document, ending 2021-08-31.
Please submit your comments to the list, also send a note if you have
reviewed the document, so we can see how many people are interested in
getting this out.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
_
> On Aug 16, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> Christian Hopps writes:
>> During the last IETF meeting it was agreed that we would move
>> quickly to resolve any issues that Tero had left, and get this
>> document submitted to the IESG. So asking again if the new version
>> (published p
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, Valery Smyslov wrote:
[ replying as I got prompted by Tero on this regarding WGLC ]
I have reviewed the document. In general I support this document. I
really like the idea of renaming the DH Registry to KE. I do think it
is not ready yet though. My comments and questions f
Christian Hopps writes:
> We certainly did not want to specify whether an implementation
> SHOULD forward complete inner packets, out of order, or not, b/c
> that is not required for interoperability.
My reading is that current text says you MUST NOT forward complete
inner packets until all earlie
> On Aug 16, 2021, at 5:09 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> ...
>> Adding a more text pointing out the obvious results of this choice
>> (i.e., that sending inner packets early can create downstream out of
>> order delivery, or that waiting for outer packets can add delay and
>> bursti-ness) would
> On Aug 16, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Koning, Paul wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 16, 2021, at 5:09 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>> Adding a more text pointing out the obvious results of this choice
>>> (i.e., that sending inner packets early can create downstream out of
>>> order delivery, or that
12 matches
Mail list logo
