WG,
we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response
to our initial proposal.
After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as
a way forward:
At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for
knowledge of existing implementatio
Alia:
Hi!
Xiaohu posted an update which I think should address your concerns. Please
take a look.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 12/2/15, 11:13 PM, "Alia Atlas"
mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That works for me.
Thanks,
Alia
On Dec 2, 2015 11:08 PM, "Xuxiaohu"
mailto:xuxia...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Stephen:
Hi!
Xiaohu posted an update that we hope addresses your concerns. Pelase take
a look.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi,
Can someone say why the mention of MACsec wasn't included?
As I understand it, MACsec is what's mostly usable for
inter-DC security so omitting it seems like a bad idea (or
perhaps I'm misinformed)
Thanks,
S.
On 14/12/15 13:34, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> Stephen:
>
> Hi!
>
> Xiaohu
Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Martin,
That sounds reasonable to me.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to
> our initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'
Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward
On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote:
>WG,
>
>we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response
>to our initial proposal.
>After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as
Martin,
Sounds like solid and reasonable approach!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our
> initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose t
If that's what can be agreed on, I'm for it ... That puts at least something in
terms of reality check between things being paper and going into STD tracks ...
thanks
--- tony
_
"Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelli
My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation
requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that
further slow down the progress of a document towards publication.
Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations,
vendor releases, etc.
This is a more reasonable approach. I am OK with this.
Andrew
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our
> initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd
Hi Stephen,
It said "...using a strong security mechanism such as IPsec [RFC4301]". Here
IPsec is just mentioned as an example of a strong security mechanism.
Therefore, it doesn't exclude MACsec.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farr...
Folks,
I'm mostly on the same page as Eric, if for no other reason that we have
an implementation hurdle in the shepherds write-up. No need to raise it
higher it already serve the purpose.
/Loa
On 2015-12-15 03:32, Eric Rosen wrote:
My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any imple
13 matches
Mail list logo