[IPsec] Fwd: [I2nsf] New Version Notification for draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-02.txt

Dear all, We have uploaded a new version of the draft Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based IPsec Flow Protection (v02). Comments are welcome!. Best regards, Gabi. > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: GABRIEL LOPEZ MILLAN > Asunto: [I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Tero, my thinking was that the main problem is that 3947 was not obsoleted and I’m assuming we need a document to fix that. In this case that document could/should also fix the IANA entry for the UDP port. However, I’m actually not sure what the right processing would be to fix this

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) writes: > so first updating is a request to IANA, so you have to remove the > first sentence. Agreed, forgot to remove that. > Then the update of the UPD port should probably be done in a > separate document that potentially also obsoletes 3947 if that was > missed with

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi all, so first updating is a request to IANA, so you have to remove the first sentence. Then the update of the UPD port should probably be done in a separate document that potentially also obsoletes 3947 if that was missed with 7296. Mirja > Am 02.05.2017 um 11:17 schrieb Tero Kivinen

Re: [IPsec] Mirja Kuehlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-ipsecme-tcp-encaps-09: (with DISCUSS)

Tommy Pauly writes: > I'll defer to Tero on this one. Tero, what do you prefer to do with the IANA > Considerations text? [Note, that I am just talking as individual here, these IANA actions do not relate the IKEv2 registries where I am IANA Expert] I proposed to change both the UDP and TCP