Hi Tero,
Thank you for the revised charter proposal. It looks great.
I have a minor clarification question.
Would this cover the work proposed in draft-antony-ipsecme-ikev2-beet-mode?
I imagine it does, but I’m seeking confirmation because at the Dublin
meeting you mentioned you would need che
Valery Smyslov writes:
> Hi Antony,
> Combining with the proposal above:
>
> Number NameReference
> 0 32-bit Sequential Numbers (SN) [RFC7296] [this ID]
> 1 64-bit Sequential Numbers (ESN) [RFC7296] [this ID]
> 2 32-bit Unspecified
Antony Antony writes:
> I have a minor clarification question.
> Would this cover the work proposed in draft-antony-ipsecme-ikev2-beet-mode?
> I imagine it does, but I’m seeking confirmation because at the Dublin
> meeting you mentioned you would need check on this.
My idea was that this:
> >
Hi Tero,
> Valery Smyslov writes:
> > Hi Antony,
> > Combining with the proposal above:
> >
> > Number NameReference
> > 0 32-bit Sequential Numbers (SN) [RFC7296] [this ID]
> > 1 64-bit Sequential Numbers (ESN) [RFC7296] [this ID]
> > 2 32-bit Unspe
Russ Housley writes:
> I do not think that RFC 9370 changes are the same as the ones we are
> discussing here.
>
> The point has been raised to the Area Directors at this point. I
> will accept whatever they consider best.
I agree with you as a WG chair, and there were others in similar
situatio
