I have reviewed the diffs from RFC 5996 to rfc5996bis-01, and I'm fine with them.
Best regards, Pasi On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, this is to start a 3-week working group last call on the IKEv2-bis (or > -bis-bis) document, ending Nov. 13. > > The draft is at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2- > **rfc5996bis<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis>. > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-**rfc5996bis-01<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-rfc5996bis-01>> > The main motivation behind the draft is to progress IKEv2 from Proposed > Standard to Internet Standard based on its broad industry adoption, and > with a minimal number of changes. See RFC 6410 for the process details. We > are planning to progress a couple other of our foundational RFCs in the > near future. > > Please read this draft and send any comments to the WG mailing list, even > if the comments are "I see no problems". Comments such as "I do not > understand this part" or "this part could be explained better in this way" > are particularly useful at this point. Please pay special attention to > differences from RFC 5996, as listed in Sec. 1.8. > > Thanks, > Paul and Yaron > > ______________________________**_________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipsec<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec> >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
