Begin forwarded message:
> From: The IESG
> Subject: Document Action: 'Brainpool Elliptic Curves for the IKE Group
> Description Registry' to Informational RFC
> (draft-harkins-brainpool-ike-groups-04.txt)
> Date: March 4, 2013 11:27:46 AM PST
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: RFC Editor
>
> The IES
Greetings again. Here is the proposed agenda for Orlando. Let Yaron and I know
if you have any changes you want.
--Paul Hoffman
IPsecME WG
IETF 86, Orlando
Tuesday, March 12, 0900-1020 (80 minutes)
Auto Discovery VPN Problem Statement and Requirements - 15 mins
http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra
Hi Yoav/Kivinen
Thanks a lot for your quick response. As Yoav said - this is for the
some legacy solution support - there in some strange situation we are ending up
with different lifetime in the boxes, and creating some issues.
So now as to add to the same question -
If we are sending
On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Anoop V A (anova) writes:
>>
>> Hello experts,
>>
>> I have a generic doubt regarding the ISAKMP SA(phase 1) life time
>> negotiation. My query is can we agree up on the ISAKMP life
>> time in the first two messages of MM or AM.
>>
>>
Anoop V A (anova) writes:
>
> Hello experts,
>
>I have a generic doubt regarding the ISAKMP SA(phase 1) life time
>negotiation. My query is can we agree up on the ISAKMP life
>time in the first two messages of MM or AM.
>
> What I want to know is - the life time is sent as an pro
Hello experts,
I have a generic doubt regarding the ISAKMP SA(phase 1) life time
negotiation. My query is can we agree up on the ISAKMP life time in the first
two messages of MM or AM.
What I want to know is - the life time is sent as an proposal attribute in the
first two messages of M
