I think we should *not* add this type. I don't see how a client and a
gateway can agree on such a "locally meaningful name", without
non-interoperable protocols (or configuration databases). And I don't think
we should add this new concept, of all places, to the Redirect draft.
But of course we sh
Hi all
I've submitted version -01 of this private draft with a few of the changes that
Raj has suggested.
I'm still not entirely convinced this is a necessary extension, and would like
to see whether there is an interest in this.
Comments are, as always, welcome.
Yoav
-Original Message--
Hi Pasi,
Thanks for your review. Please see my comments below.
Yaron
> -Original Message-
> From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> pasi.ero...@nokia.com
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 21:47
> To: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] WG Last Cal
At 7:16 PM +0300 5/31/09, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> > 6) Section 6: The word "Unspecified" is probably wrong here -- this
>> document has to specify these (but clearly an implementation doesn't
>> have to include in the ticket any data it never uses).
>>
>[YS] I have used "unspecified" as synonymous w
A gentle reminder.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Raj Singh wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 5/26/09 10:10 PM, "Raj Singh" wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Vijay,
>> >
>> > I have some question on ikev2-redirect-10 draft.
>> >
>> > In section
