Hi,
> This will start two week WGLC for the draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-qr-alt [1].
> This last
> call will end at 2024-08-11. If you have any comments about the draft send
> them to
> the WG list.
>
> This current draft uses different method of mixing the secret data to the IKE
> SA
> state than
Hi Tero,
> I think the reason I am unhappy with the current one is that I do not like
the fixed
> 8-octet stuff at the end, which we can't change without allocating yet
another
> notification (in case someone would want to change it to 16 octets, we
need to
> allocate new PPK_IDENTITY_KEY2 notify
Hi,
I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to
express at IETF120,
but due to lack of time they were not responded to.
1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My primary
question -
in what language this free text explanation is supposed
Hi,
I have some comments on draft-pan-ipsecme-anti-replay-notification that I
tried to express at IETF120,
but due to lack of time they were not responded to.
I think that the following assertion in the draft is wrong:
Although
ESN is good to avoid the sequence number running out in a sho
"Valery Smyslov" writes:
Hi,
I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to
express at IETF120,
but due to lack of time they were not responded to.
1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My primary
question -
in what language this free
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:37 AM Valery Smyslov
wrote:
>
> I think that the following assertion in the draft is wrong:
>
>Although
>ESN is good to avoid the sequence number running out in a short
>period, there is a prerequisite for using ESN - RFC 4302 and RFC 4303
>both require E
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info that I tried to
> express at IETF120,
> but due to lack of time they were not responded to.
>
> 1. I'm very much concerned with the "Delete Reason Text" field. My primary
> q
