Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> In addition, during february, i also started to reach out to IPsec
> mailing list to further discuss details of the proposed enhancements to
> the IPsec profile. I ran out of time last week, and plan to finalize
> those fixes quickly (together with the WG fix sugestions i received for
> -24).
I helped Toerless, although I disagree with some of his points.
The IPsec WG seems to disagree with me (hardly surprising), but should there
be a virtual meeting for IPsecME, I would suggest we attempt to put up two
slides.
> In addition, i will also reach out directly to the IPsec experts i know
> and ask for the rfc822name encoding. I did that already last year, but
> never received replies.
No, none of them care about rfc822name encoding.
No products can directly deal with the rfc822name encoding as is, and since
we aren't generating Traffic Selectors based upon the certificate (we use
RPL and VTI), it doesn't really matter. IPsec IKEv2 will need to accept
connections from any node that has the right CA signature.
> Eric told me, he wants to put ACP back onto the IESG agenda for April,
> and this would result in a new IETF review.
I think you mean, IESG review.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
