Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Tero Kivinen ; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike
>
...
>
> >> I am also not clear on the real use of negotiating hash algorithms
> >> for the digest receiving of the ADD server "iden
Tero Kivinen writes:
> This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
> 2021-11-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
> this document as WG document or not.
We had some discussion on the mechanims defined in this draft, but
there was also lots of sup
Hi Tommy,
All good points. Thanks.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : IPsec De la part de Tommy Pauly
> Envoyé : jeudi 11 novembre 2021 15:08
> À : Tero Kivinen ; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-ad
I support adoption of this work. The mechanism of specifying the authentication
domain name and service parameters is sound, and the right direction.
I do agree with Paul Wouter’s comments, and I think the parts of the document
that deal with requirements for config requests need work. Ideally,
o Kivinen
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> >>>> So the client sends FOO(x) and the server respones with FOO(y)
> >>>>
> >>>> x can be empty
HI,
Just for the record: as a co-author I (obviously) support adoption or this
document.
Regards,
Valery.
> This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
> 2021-11-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
> this document as WG document or not.
> --
> This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
> 2021-11-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
> this document as WG document or not.
I have browsed through the document.
I don't know if the mechanism is correct or not.
I think that P
On Wed, 10 Nov 2021, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
So the client sends FOO(x) and the server respones with FOO(y)
x can be empty (eg the client has no previous notion or preference
for FOO. Or if it has one, it can suggest it. The server takes that
value only as a preference of the client
De la part de Tero Kivinen
> > Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2021 15:17
> > À : ipsec@ietf.org
> > Objet : [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike
> >
> > This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
> > 2021-11-22. Please send yo
Hi Paul,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Paul Wouters
> Envoyé : mercredi 10 novembre 2021 01:20
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : ipsec@ietf.org; draft-btw-add-ipsecme-...@ietf.org; Tero Kivinen
>
> Objet : Re: [IPsec]
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Note that what I said there was that you should not update the _mechanism_
of how CFG requests/responds are done. You should use the existing
mechanism with a new value, but use the same negotation mechanism.
So the client sends FOO(x) and
Hi Paul,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Paul Wouters
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2021 19:06
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Tero Kivinen ; ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Note the text of the draft claims it updates RFC 8598 but doesn't do so
via an Updates: statement.
[Med] We considered to have an "update" header because we were concerned with
some MUSTs in 8598. We finally didn't include the update hea
Hi Paul,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : IPsec De la part de Paul Wouters
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2021 16:20
> À : Tero Kivinen
> Cc : ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike
>
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Subject: [IPsec] WG Adoption call for draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike
This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
2021-11-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
this document as WG document or not.
I support
Hi Tero, all,
I support adoption.
FWIW, I'm not aware of any IPR related to this I-D.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : IPsec De la part de Tero Kivinen
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2021 15:17
> À : ipsec@ietf.org
> Objet : [IPsec] WG Adoption call
This is the start of 2 week WG adoption call for this document, ending
2021-11-22. Please send your reply about whether you support adopting
this document as WG document or not.
--
kivi...@iki.fi
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
17 matches
Mail list logo
