[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ipsec] FW: Remaining issues for IKEv2



At 12:23 PM -0400 5/11/04, Stephen Kent wrote:
I made suggested changes and reached accord with the folks who actively participated and offered such suggestions on the list: Tero, Markku, Michael, Paul Konig, and Mark Duffy. My acceptance of the changes is also documented on the list.

... but the final wording is not.


The resulting text is in the latest version of 2401bis that was posted a week ago.

Yes, but not the proposed wording for IKEv2. Having specific, final wording for Charlie on the list would make it much easier than asking him to synthesize it from the thread and from your corrections. It would also give the above people a chance to see if they agree with your assessment of consensus on the IKEv2 part of the discussion.


But, I did misspeak yesterday in my hasty reply to Charlie. At Tero's suggestion, the text dealing with fragment handling does refer to a NOTIFY for IKEv2 in support of one of the options, in addition to the use of OPAQUE selectors.

...thereby making it even more clear that specific wording on the list is needed before you assert to Charlie that he should make changes to the IKEv2 document.


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
Ipsec@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec