I support Bob's suggestion. I also believe that multicore will be addressed by design. I do want to have some mechanisms like [1] to be included by design. That said, I would like [1] to start on ESPv3 and take the output back to ESPv-4 as opposed to waiting for ESP-v4.
Interims are free, we can be flexible and have a mix of presentations / discussions. Yours, Daniel [1] ponchon-ipsecme-anti-replay-subspaces-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ponchon-ipsecme-anti-replay-subspaces/> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:59 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - How should the problems be solved? > >> > > > Once we have a list, I think we can come up with plans to tweak ESP > to > > tick off our list items. > > > I do think we need some short presentations for an interim. Just > having > > a free flow discussion will probably not be very useful. > > We need a candidate list of items, then a slide / github issue per item, > and > then we need to discuss enough such that all people have a deep > understanding > of that item. > > It could be that we have items which were duplicate, and it could also be > that we have goals which are really two goals. > > {I think we are in complete agreement about how such a virtual interim > should go} > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
