> -Original Message-
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:04 PM
> To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [FW: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt]
>
> Even if figures are removed,
h reducing quotes since it got bounced.
> >
> >- Forwarded message from Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> >
> >From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt
> >To: "Jos
.
- Forwarded message from Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
&q
Let me forward my response with reducing quotes since it got bounced.
- Forwarded message from Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IETF last call on draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)"
se the document.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vidya
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:44 PM
> > > To: Bernard Aboba; Yoshih
e
> revise the document.
>
> Thanks,
> Vidya
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:44 PM
> > To: Bernard Aboba; Yoshihiro Ohba
> > Cc: Jari Arkko; Bar
ther nits suggested by Bernard as we
revise the document.
Thanks,
Vidya
> -Original Message-
> From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:44 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; Yoshihiro Ohba
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Barany, Pete; ietf@ie
At 08:20 AM 12/29/2006, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
Hi Lakshminath,
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:20:35AM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> On your comment about whether or not a 1 octet field is necessary, my
> opinion is that it is the most optimal design (cannot be any smaller
> :)). I don't thin
Hi Lakshminath,
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:20:35AM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> On your comment about whether or not a 1 octet field is necessary, my
> opinion is that it is the most optimal design (cannot be any smaller
> :)). I don't think ethertype will work in a generic sense to
Hi Yoshi,
Thanks for your followup comments. I understand that your opinion is
that each lower layer should do it on its own and perhaps some lower
layers will follow that track. In the 3GPP2 case, it was deemed a
good idea to do it in a "generic" sense for some degree of
genericness. As J
Hi Lakshminath,
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 11:43:34PM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Hi Bernard, Yoshi,
>
> Many thanks for your reviews and notes. I am going to try and
> address the overarching issues. Once we settle on those, we can take
> care of the details.
>
> * On the use of the te
Hi Bernard, Yoshi,
Many thanks for your reviews and notes. I am going to try and
address the overarching issues. Once we settle on those, we can take
care of the details.
* On the use of the term "generic":
At the beginning of the GEE standardization effort, the idea was to
specify the pro
Review of draft-barany-eap-gee-04.txt
Overall Comments
The title of this document "3GPP2 Generic EAP Encapsulation (GEE)
Protocol" is somewhat of a contradiction in terms, implying both a
mechanism that is specific to 3GPP2, as well as a "generic" encapsulation,
suitable for use with any link
13 matches
Mail list logo
