> >Note that setting up Security Associations to deal with all the
> >required ICMP packets is a very difficult task (e.g., consider
> >the PMTUD packets). So PMTUD (and possibly some others) may not
> >work if the node only allows authenticated ICMP packet.
>
> s/packet/packets
[snipped other parts as I trivially agree with them]
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > OK -- I'm fine with putting it in as MAY, with some
> > additional text to describe its inherent problems,
> > e.g. like:
> >
> > Note that setting up Security Associations to deal with all t
Pekka,
comments inline..
> Well, if we conclude that those are required, maybe we have to use
> draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis instead -- that's already been at IESG
> evaluation so might not end up blocking the document.
I think, we should use the latest drafts instead of the old RFCs.
I will u
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Process issue: Draft Standard may not refer normatively to
> > specifications of lower standardization status. See
> > draft-ymbk-downref-01.txt for a bit of discussion. That is,
> > IPv6-ADDR, PMTU and IPsec documents are unsuitable for normative
Pekka,
Sorry that I am replying to this mail so late ! and Thanks
for reviewing the draft thoroughly. Please see my comments
inline..
> Process issue: Draft Standard may not refer normatively to
> specifications of lower standardization status. See
> draft-ymbk-downref-01.txt for a bit of discus
