Hi, after reading the draft's introduction, I think the problem described is real. So I support adoption of this draft.
That said, it seems that the current draft solves the problem in suboptimal way (too many new notifications defined), but that can be definitely discussed in the WG. And yes, I'm ready to review the draft. Regards, Valery. > Our new charter has been approved and that includes item: > > 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. > A possible starting pointing is > draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes. > > So this email will start one week long WG adoptation call for that > document [1] for WG adoptation. > > Send your comments to this list before the 2018-10-21. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes/ > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
