Saurabh M <sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main reason for our recommendation are:
> - It is what customers are asking for.
> - We actually prefer that there are 2 separate protocols that co-operate
to
> build the complete solution as it gives us the flexibility for each one to
> exist without mandating the other.
1) If you can can do this as it is, do we actually need to standardize
anything?
2) if you can build this in a number of different ways, how will your
customer interoperate with another similar solution, should they
acquire (or be acquired) another entity that has a similar solution?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
pgp1kuzGzHNbt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
