Hi Sean,
On Thu, October 11, 2012 5:47 pm, Sean Turner wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Thanks for the backfill (ack that's it's not just for SAE).
>
> Question: If Johannes's draft had gone through for IKEv1 you wouldn't
> have needed to make the request for the code points?
Yes, that's correct because th
Hi Sean,
On Thu, October 11, 2012 5:47 pm, Sean Turner wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Thanks for the backfill (ack that's it's not just for SAE).
>
> Question: If Johannes's draft had gone through for IKEv1 you wouldn't
> have needed to make the request for the code points?
Yes, that's correct because th
Dan,
Thanks for the backfill (ack that's it's not just for SAE).
Question: If Johannes's draft had gone through for IKEv1 you wouldn't
have needed to make the request for the code points?
Because a clock is apparently ticking on the request I think we need to
address the request in front of
On 9/21/12 12:39 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
"Sean" == Sean Turner writes:
Sean> that requested the points and that the "notes" column would
Sean> contain "not for IKEv1" - and then we'd talk about it. Dan
...
Sean> In this unfortunate situation, I'd like everyone to consi
