Hi Paul,
Thanks for your quick comments. But I'm sorry for the late response due to I
was out of the office for a few days.
> I can see how you want an extra SPD selector for the VPN ID - but
> maybe call it Namespace ID or something else as VPN ID is confusing.
Thanks for pointing out
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Panwei (William) wrote:
Indeed, splitting the 32-bit SPI into two sub-fields, the VPN ID sub-field and
SPI sub-field, may also be one option. This solution doesn't need to change the
ESP packet format, but it also has some disadvantages.
The first one is the scalable issue
If you have anything that you want to be included in the IETF 119
agenda, please send email to the IPsecME WG chairs
(ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org) as soon as possible, as I will be making the
final agenda tomorrow...
--
kivi...@iki.fi
___
IPsec mailing list
Hi Paul:
Thanks for your advices and the comments for the draft!
About your suggestion of ISE process, and the IPSecME WG "Expert Review", we
will follow this existing way.
For the comments corresponding to the CBC and GCM variant, please find my
response as follows:
For CBC variant, we keep i
