[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Chris, > > 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 lan

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi Paul, On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov < smyslov.i...@gmail.com> 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 co

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pan-ipsecme-anti-replay-notification

Hi Paul, 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 ESN to be used in conjunction with the anti-replay fun

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pan-ipsecme-anti-replay-notification

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:16 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > 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 >

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

(I think gmail is reaching its limits on careful quoting context, hope I get it all right) On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 10:49 AM Valery Smyslov wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:18 AM Valery Smyslov > wrote: > > Hi, > > I have some comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info th

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Valery Smyslov wrote: > 2. The list of reasons looks to me both incomplete and excessive at the same > time. If we are going to rely on the enum alone, then it needs to cover all sorts of cases that might be specific to some implementations, while other implementations would have a more

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

"Valery Smyslov" writes: Hi Chris, > 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 - >

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

Hi, I’ve read the threads, and to avoid the long email page I try to summarize my opinions below. 1. I also support making this document Informational or Experimental. 2. Through the discussions, I feel that even IPsec experts will have inconsistencies and ambiguities in their understanding of

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pwouters-ipsecme-delete-info

> >> humans are capable of reading text in a language w/o needing a tag to > > identify it. > > > > I emphatically disagree. If I send you the following reason message, > > will it help you? > > > > Сервер отключен для пусконаладочных работ на три часа > > This example doesn't make sense to me, it

[IPsec] Re: Comments on draft-pan-ipsecme-anti-replay-notification

Hi Paul, Perhaps this discussion is a bit premature, since I currently have to guess what you intend to achieve and how this influences packet processing. Can you please include answers to the following questions in the next revision: 1. What happens