On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:15:46 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
= I don't know. Of course this is not ambiguous for me...
Perhaps it is time to get an advice from our security area director?
Perhaps, but I don't know if we can expect an answer considering the
silence so
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:21:31 +0200,
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Then how about the following change?
= we have almost finished:
Proposed resolution (new)
A limited scoped address without its zone identifier value has
In your previous mail you wrote:
Basically, I don't have a problem with your suggestion, but I have a
couple of questions:
1. Isn't the notion of traffic selector specific to IKEv2? If so,
should we explicitly say IKEv2 in the example?
= the term is but not the notion. In
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:50:59 +0200,
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Basically, I don't have a problem with your suggestion, but I have a
couple of questions:
1. Isn't the notion of traffic selector specific to IKEv2? If so,
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:20:53 +0200,
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Please let me check...are you saying something like this?
The proposed text says:
unqualified IP addresses cannot safely be used for IKE negotiation.
=
In your previous mail you wrote:
For reference, the full text of (the candidate of) new revision is
available at: http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-02rc1.txt
Steve Bellovin:
Discuss:
[2004-07-06] The Security Considerations section should note that the
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
