Thanks David.
- JOuni
On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Black, David david.bl...@emc.com wrote:
And the -12 version is likewise ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Thanks,
--David
-Original Message-
From: Black, David
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:41 PM
To: Ben
Great. Thanks!
- Jouni
On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Black, David david.bl...@emc.com wrote:
The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as
an Informational RFC.
Thanks
should also happen before sending the document
out of the WG.
My Z$0.02,
Jouni
On May 1, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant amount of reviews
and changes in the late stages of the IETF process. Next week
Roni,
Thanks for the review. We'll take care of the editorials.
- Jouni
On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Roni Even wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please
Thanks Ben for a thorough review. Very good comments indeed. We'll come back
to this in a bit.. you know -00 deadline approaching and such ;)
- Jouni
On 2/29/12 1:34 AM, ext Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART
to solution part.. Seems like a relaxed milestone plan but I have
doubts it would progress any faster in real life even if milestones were
tighter ;)
- Jouni
On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi,
If a number of hands were raised now and the folks commanding them say
So be it.. from my behalf.
- Jouni
On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
And I'd be ecstatic (when it happens:-)
Thanks,
S
On 01/16/2012 02:51 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
This would be fine with me.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: jouni korhonen
protocol that fixes a serious bug/flaw in security.
On the other hand, if an explicit note is needed about this topic
in the charter, I might hesitate to include such in this round.
I would first like to see some concrete movement work around
this topic.
- Jouni
On Jan 11, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Stephen
3.1 states:
Good point. So, you are saying that we should have:
1 0-10-10-1 80 Message-Authenticator
or would
1 1 1 180 Message-Authenticator
be even better as RFC3759 5090 do?
- Jouni
While [RFC2865] did not require authentication
On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Message-Authenticator should be mandatory (1 1 1 1).
Ack. Thanks Bernard.
- Jouni
On Jan 10, 2012, at 22:30, jouni korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
Bernard,
Thank you for your review. See my comments inline.
On Jan 10
Dear Gang,
On Aug 9, 2011, at 7:14 PM, GangChen wrote:
Dear Jouni,
In mobile CPE case, MT and TE are separated. That would need
additional requirements in some particular cases, e.g. dynamic IPv6
address allocation.
Separate MT TE is part of the existing 3GPP specifications
requirement from 3GPP.
- Jouni
On Aug 5, 2011, at 5:55 AM, GangChen wrote:
Hello Authors,
I think it is worth adding some texts to describe mobile CPE case, in
which CPEs with wireless modem use 3GPP access as uplink.
Gang
2011/8/2, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org:
The IESG has
..). Therefore, there is theoretical but
very unlikely chance for link-local address collision between the UE and the
gateway on the 3GPP link. Since the UE may or may not perform DAD this can be
unnoticed during the address configuration phase.
- Jouni
2011/8/2, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org
[RFC3588] to the HAAA and inform the termination of an
Spencer (clarity): I got lost in this sentence. Suggest to inform
the HAAA that the termination of
The proposed change looks good to me.
Cheers,
Jouni
ongoing PMIPv6 session is in progress
,
Jouni
On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
My understanding is that this registry requires IETF Consensus as
defined in 2434. However, theses registration are being defined by
3GPP TS 29.272 which does not have IETF Consensus. If the DIME
community wishes to allow registrations
Hi Spencer,
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
Thanks for your quick response - I'm OK with most of your proposed
changes.
I should emphasize that my comments here are Last Call comments that
you (and the document shepherd, and the AD) can decide to ignore
Spencer: (if you revise this draft, you probably want to use TBD1, TBD2,
etc. so that it's clearer to IANA which TBD gets replaced with each
allocated value)
Good point. I'll fix that.
Cheers,
Jouni
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https
414553
With the changes described above, I can reproduce matching results for
the test vectors.
--
Jouni MalinenPGP id EFC895FA
___
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
authentication). In addition, both the R0KH-ID
(NAS-Identifier) and R1KH-ID (authenticator MAC address) are mixed in
into the key derivation after the EAP authentication.
--
Jouni MalinenPGP id EFC895FA
___
Ietf mailing
19 matches
Mail list logo
