Vishwas,
See below.
On 12/5/2012 3:06 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> > Thanks for your close reading of the document. I am attaching the
> > changed document. Please let me know if it looks good.
> >
> > On 11/15/2012 7:14 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > > -
Hi Lou,
> Thanks for your close reading of the document. I am attaching the
> > changed document. Please let me know if it looks good.
> >
> > On 11/15/2012 7:14 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > > - In section 2.2, I think mentioning something about the
> routing
> > > implication
Hi Vishwas,
see below for response.
On 12/5/2012 12:54 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Thanks for your close reading of the document. I am attaching the
> changed document. Please let me know if it looks good.
>
> On 11/15/2012 7:14 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > - In
Hi Tero,
some additional feedback:
Introduction:
In the paragraph 4 you point out the two achievements of the draft:
- A generalized authentication method for authentication with digital signatures
- A negotiation method for the hash function used as message digest within the
signature
The motiv
Hi Lou,
Thanks for your close reading of the document. I am attaching the changed
document. Please let me know if it looks good.
On 11/15/2012 7:14 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> > - In section 2.2, I think mentioning something about the routing
> > implications is worthwhile. How about at t
Hi Yoav!
On 12/05/2012 11:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi Yaron
On Dec 5, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Yaron Sheffer
wrote:
Hi,
In general, it seems to me we are trying to solve more than we
should, and we should punt on some of the NAT use cases, leave them
to configuration or to out-of-protocol solutions
Hi Yaron
On Dec 5, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In general, it seems to me we are trying to solve more than we should, and we
> should punt on some of the NAT use cases, leave them to configuration or to
> out-of-protocol solutions like STUN and friends. Maybe even DNS SRV
