I'll defer to Paul on this one.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 09/24/2013 05:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
<no hat>
On Sep 24, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Yaron Sheffer writes:
I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced from 5996bis.
Ok, if there is any disagreement about it, then I think it is better
to leave it out from 5996bis.
Please do not. It is flawed, but it is the best we have. If you leave it out,
then you will have to reproduce all the valuable matching bits in 5996bis.
That's possible, but likely more work than you expect.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
