Hi Sean.
I have just submitted version -05 which addresses most (but not all) of your
comments. Here's a list of the exceptions (hope I didn't miss any)
#2. I've worded the abstract a little differently. Main difference is adding to
gaps in existing standards the words and their
Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi Sean.
I have just submitted version -05 which addresses most (but not all) of your
comments. Here's a list of the exceptions (hope I didn't miss any)
#2. I've worded the abstract a little differently. Main difference is adding to gaps in existing
standards the words and
On Jun 10, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
#13, #15, a few more (no MUST/SHOULD/MAY language). I have two issues with
this. The first, is that this document is a problem statement, and intended
to be INFORMATIONAL. No gateway is ever going to be said to implement
Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 10, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
#13, #15, a few more (no MUST/SHOULD/MAY language). I have two issues with this. The first, is that this
document is a problem statement, and intended to be INFORMATIONAL. No gateway is ever going to be said to
Done in -06
On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 10, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
Yoav Nir wrote:
#13, #15, a few more (no MUST/SHOULD/MAY language). I have two issues with
this. The first, is that this document is a problem statement, and
Yaron asked me to review draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha on 2010-06-01.
Here are my comments most of which are about clarifying text (so that
readers who didn't participate in the WG discussions can understand
this unambiguously), plus a couple of nits.
Yoav, could you post a new version that
