Christian Hopps writes: > So did the adoption poll succeed? :) Yes. I did not see anybody objecting to it and there was all usual suspects supporting it.
The problem why I could not mark it as done is that I had some problems with my firewall/mailserver/www-server etc and I reinstalled the whole thing trying to verify whether it is hardware or software issues, and this operation took several days instead of few hours it was supposed to do... > Thanks, > Chris. > > > On Oct 26, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So this is fast (one week) adoption call for the > > draft-hopps-ipsecme-iptfs draft to be accepted to the WG document. We > > did have quite positive feedback in last IETF meeting and the charter > > item is being worked on in parallel to this call. > > > > If you support adopting this document as WG document and as a starting > > place for the charter item proposed for the WG, then send email > > indicating your support to the [email protected] mailing-list. If you > > have any comments or reservations send them to list too. > > > > This adoption call finishes at 2019-11-04. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The demand for Traffic Flow Confidentiality has been increasing in the user > > community; however, the current method defined in RFC4303 (i.e., add null > > padding to each ESP payload) is very inefficient in it's use of network > > resources. The working group will develop an alternative TFC solution that > > provides for efficient use of network resources. > > -- > > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > > -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
