RE: Resolving Russ Housley's DISCUSSes on Node Requirements, part 2

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, how to pick between IKEv1 or IKEv2? There is no guidence anywhere on this. True, that could cause an interoperability issue. But this is what the security ADs should be giving guidance on :). However, discussing this point with

RE: Resolving Russ Housley's DISCUSSes on Node Requirements, part 2

Hi Pekka, On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, how to pick between IKEv1 or IKEv2? There is no guidence anywhere on this. True, that could cause an interoperability issue. But this is what the security ADs should be giving guidance on :). One would hope.

Re: Stateful != M , Stateless != O

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:28:46PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: [...] Why? In this (i.e., the latter) scenario, does M=1/O=0 simply mean that (Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply and)Rebind/Renew/Request is available but Information Request is not? Perhaps this is

comments from Steve Bellovin on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt

Hello, Thanks for your feedback on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt in IESG evaluation. Below are my proposed resolutions to your comments. I'm planning to submit a new revision of the draft containing the resolutions next week. Any comments on the proposal by then would be highly

Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt

Hi Jinmei, cut I don't mind adding the appendix as long we just describe possible issues (if any) and do NOT try to provide workaround like combining router/parameters. That looks fine, we will just describe the issues and leave the implementation details to the developers. JINMEI,

Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:12:09 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: FYI, attached below are comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt from the IESG. I'm going to propose resolutions in separate messages, copying to each reviewer. (Forgot to mention this) I've simply accepted

Re: Scoped addres arch

Hello, Thanks for the (off-list) comments on the draft. According to the following suggestion from the chairs, I'm now responding to the comments at this timing. On Fri, 14 May 2004 06:13:05 -0400, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi Tim, I have copied Jinmei, who is the

RE: Stateful != M , Stateless != O

Title: RE: Stateful != M , Stateless != O Having been reviewing the combined ICMPv6 drafts and following this thread, I would support Stig's ideas here. The wording around 3315/3736 needs to be cleared up because a naive reader *would be* confused by the juxtaposition of 'stateful', 3736

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-05.txt --- anoth er question

Hi all, this RFC is doing a good service for multi-home nodes. The question becomes then how to integrate this solution in an old environment. Specifically when currently some multi-homed products are sniffing RIPNG for route detection. In the transition period some of the router vendors will

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt

Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt Its hard to keep up with the versions of this draft;-) I take it that -05 is merely the complete version of -04 - I can't see any difference. So here goes with my comments that were intended for -04.