Hi Tero, Thank you for the update.
I was naively expecting a formal call to assess the interest/objections for each of the proposed items. Perhaps, I'm not the only one in that case. I have one "logistic" question: if this proposed item is not included in the charter, does this mean that I can proceed with the code points assignment request (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes/) with IANA and the codes will be assigned? For the record, the only comments I received were from Paul (thanks), and an updated version of the draft that addresses those comments was released. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Tero Kivinen [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mardi 6 février 2018 19:36 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : RE: [IPsec] Candidate charter text is now in wiki > > [email protected] writes: > > It seems that you missed this text for the address failure codes (Nov 13): > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg11724.html > > Yes, as I wanted to get some more discussion about it in the mailing > list first. I have not seen any discussion about it since the IETF, so > is there really enough interest for it. The charter in wiki only > included items we discussed in the meeting. > > > I'm resending it fwiw: > > > > RFC7296 defines a generic notification code that is related to a > > failure to handle an internal address failure. That code does not > > explicitly allow an initiator to determine why a given address family > > is not assigned, nor whether it should try using another address > > family. The Working Group will specify a set of more specific > > notification codes that will provide sufficient information to the > > IKEv2 initiator about the encountered failure. > -- > [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
