Valery Smyslov writes: > 8. Page 31. > "However, if the responder sends a non-zero > responder SPI, the initiator should not reject the response for only > that reason." > > Should here "should not" be "SHOULD NOT"?
If I correctly parsed exchanges in the mailing list concensus was to skip this change? Was my interpretation correct? So currently this change was skipped. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
