> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> > It can represent optionality of the security label.
>
> An optional security label has no meaning. If you have a real case of
optional
> security labels, lets year it. Otherwise, I think we should move on
without
> supporting optional security lab
Lou Berger writes:
> I'd prefer to see the SHOULD and MAY reversed -- intentionally
> introducing additional reordering is generally considered something to
> avoid.
Yes, intentionally introducing reordering or delay SHOULD be avoided,
thats why it is important to keep the SHOULD and MAY as they
Hi Paul:
I've reviewed your draft to determine if it is viable as a solution to the
network multi-pathing problems I've been investigation. Though I have no
objection to your solution for multi-cpu balancing, it does not seem to provide
a reasonable alternative to draft-xu-ipsecme-esp-in-udp-lb
IP Security Maintenance and Extensions (IPsecME) WG.
IETF 112 - Monday November 8th, 2021 12:00-14:00 UTC
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf112/?group=ipsecme&short=&item=1
Agenda
- Note Well, technical difficulties and agenda bashing -
Chairs (5 min)
- Document Status -
Chairs (10 min
