Paul Hoffman writes:
> In specific, it would be good if the pickier folks on this list to
> look at 2195 and see if this is really just a clarification or is a
> change that limits something we don't want to limit. Comments on any
> of the others is welcome too.
I think the change in 2195 is ok,
2195 looks like a clarification to me. And not an essential one either,
because the attribute structure further down the section make it very
clear that there's one type per attribute.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 05/18/2010 12:39 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:07 PM -0400 5/17/10, Sean Turner wrot
I read this document and it seems to be mostly ok.
I might disagree on some parts of the section 1 text talking why EAP
is needed (I think the main reason was to support legacy systems. The
public keys are flexible enough to meet requirements of many
deployment scenarios unless your requirement in
Hi Tero,
thanks for your comments. I (obviously) disagree with your position on
EAP, but I'll leave it at that. The WG decided we will specify this
extension, and the market will decide in what exact scenarios it is, or
isn't, useful.
I will change the text in Sec. 3.
Regards,
Yaron
Comments inline.
-Original Message-
From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivi...@iki.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:41 AM
To: Jitender Arora
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] New draft posted
Jitender Arora writes:
> Jitender--> Currently we are using this approach (basically using
