Hi Steffen,
Thanks for your input and that is very useful for us.
At yesterday's meeting, I think people basically understood and accepted the
problem statement itself, but also raised different ideas regarding to the
solutions.
We'll try to do more analysis and comparison of possible solutions
Panwei \(William\) wrote:
> At yesterday's meeting, I think people basically understood and
> accepted the problem statement itself, but also raised different ideas
> regarding to the solutions. We'll try to do more analysis and
> comparison of possible solutions, including what
All of these were resolved in -06
Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> On Mar 20, 2024, at 15:33, Roman Danyliw wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Thanks for the quick response. Below is a bit more editorial back-and-forth
> for small number of issues. All of the other discussion removed from
Hi Michael,
> > At yesterday's meeting, I think people basically understood and
> > accepted the problem statement itself, but also raised different
> > ideas regarding to the solutions. We'll try to do more analysis
> > and comparison of possible solutions, includ
Dear Tero Kivinen, Valery Smyslov (cc: ipsecme WG),
As the designated experts for the IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Error Types and
Status Types registries, can you review the proposed registrations in
draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-06 for us? Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
David Dong via RT writes:
> Dear Tero Kivinen, Valery Smyslov (cc: ipsecme WG),
>
> As the designated experts for the IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Error
> Types and Status Types registries, can you review the proposed
> registrations in draft-ietf-ipsecme-multi-sa-performance-06 for us?
> Please s
Panwei (William) wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>> > At yesterday's meeting, I think people basically understood and >
>> accepted the problem statement itself, but also raised different >
>> ideas regarding to the solutions. We'll try to do more analysis > and
>> comparison of possib
Shihang(Vincent) writes:
> Hi Tero,
> We moved our draft of IPComp extension from 6man to IPSecMe because
> people told me that IPComp IANA registry is in the IPSec. However
> the extension itself is not related to encryption. I wonder if the
> IPSecMe is the right place for the draft.
It is not,
L
> On Mar 21, 2024, at 14:44, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> Shihang(Vincent) writes:
>> Hi Tero,
>> We moved our draft of IPComp extension from 6man to IPSecMe because
>> people told me that IPComp IANA registry is in the IPSec. However
>> the extension itself is not related to encryption. I wonder i
