Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
> Whether we support generic transport or only a subset of transport
> configurations (e.g., tunnels) or both, the reasons we make whatever
> choices we make, and the mechanisms for how to implement TFS with
> whatever is chosen, is what this new draft would cover. I see this
> building on top of the TFS tunnel mode draft.
> The rest of what I put above was really just ideas for what would go in
> that new draft. My thinking that if we wanted to support a subset of
> transport mode configurations (e.g., for use with GRE, SRv6, IP-IP,
> etc) we could specify that by defining a set of restrictions on the
> user IP headers. I'm not sure if that's what you mean is a hack or not,
> but I figured if we define it by the restrictions rather than
> specifically only for GRE it's more broadly useful for little extra
> cost. In any case the discussion of this and definition is what I think
> would go well in the context of it's own draft.
I understand you, and I agree with your idea.
I agree with putting it into a different draft, but we might need to clearly
articulate where the extension point is in this draft.
I will have to re-read the document, since it's been awhile since I read it.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
