Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] How does Overlay Network inform the Underlay network on which flows among Overlay network nodes need to go through IPSec Tunnel? (was : Flow Security Policies exchanged over I2NSF

the controller to react and update the SAs. Is this kind of event in the I2NSF scope? In any case we are going to modify the I-D to show all these aspects. Some comments inline: > > > Other comments are inserted below > > > -Original Message- > From: Rafa Ma

Re: [I2nsf] How does Overlay Network inform the Underlay network on which flows among Overlay network nodes need to go through IPSec Tunnel? (was : Flow Security Policies exchanged over I2NSF service

Dear all: Maybe this I-D might be interesting and related with this discussion regarding IPsec/IKE management. We hope to have an updated version soon and a proof-of-concept implementation of some of the scenarios. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abad-sdnrg-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-01 Best

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] How does Overlay Network inform the Underlay network on which flows among Overlay network nodes need to go through IPSec Tunnel? (was : Flow Security Policies exchanged over I2NSF

controllers would fail so that you would notice that the needed resource is not available as well, right? Best Regards. > > > > Thanks, Linda > > -Original Message- > From: Rafa Marin Lopez [mailto:r...@um.es] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 7:43 AM > To: Linda

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] How does Overlay Network inform the Underlay network on which flows among Overlay network nodes need to go through IPSec Tunnel? (was : Flow Security Policies exchanged over I2NSF

Dear Sowmini: Thanks for asking about our I-D. > El 17 jun 2016, a las 23:26, Sowmini Varadhan > escribió: > > On (06/17/16 20:50), Linda Dunbar wrote: >> - Section 8.1: Page 11: Bullet 1: >> You stated that the node sends the first packet to Controller for

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] How does Overlay Network inform the Underlay network on which flows among Overlay network nodes need to go through IPSec Tunnel? (was : Flow Security Policies exchanged over I2NSF

Dear Sowmini: > El 19 jun 2016, a las 23:45, Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varad...@oracle.com> > escribió: > > On (06/19/16 20:06), Rafa Marin Lopez wrote: >>> I had a related question Section 8.2, #2 as well: is the first >>> data packet in the clear or

Re: [I2nsf] Corrections to use case and problem statement

Hi Susan: Thank you for addressing these comments. Let me answer a couple of aspects. > > Section 4. In the use cases, there is no explicit text where key distribution > is required. One may think that section 4.3.2 and, most probably, 4.3.3 may > be related with key management (section

Re: [I2nsf] Queries on i2nsf's intended coverage over multi-domain opsec automated provisioning

--- > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf> -

Re: [I2nsf] Oct 5 2016 I2NSF Interim meeting slides, webex bridge and the Etherpad

ed below: [Rafa] Mine, as well. Please see inline. > > Please provide the clarification requested below. > >> Subject: Re: Next steps about SDN and IPSec >> From: Rafa Marin Lopez <r...@um.es> >> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 23:59:14 +0200 >> Cc: Rafa Marin Lopez <r...@um

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 99 I2NSF WG Preliminary Agenda is uploaded.

to seeing you in Prague. > > Travel safe, > Linda & Adrian. > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

> -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

__ > IPsec mailing list > ip...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec --- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of Computer Science-U

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

st policies to endpoints. I would much rather see a minimal-IKEv2 > implementation then this "non-IKE" style solution. > > Paul > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

there are many of them. >> >> Regards, >> Valery. >> >> ___ >> I2nsf mailing list >> I2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:I2nsf@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >> <https://www

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

Hi Tero: Thanks for this discussion. Really interesting and productive in my opinion. My comments inline > El 19 jul 2017, a las 10:17, Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> escribió: > > Rafa Marin-Lopez writes: >>I.e. any TLA would love to get their hands on all the traf

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] Can IPSec (RFC 5996) support tunnels with end point being (virtual) CPEs which has a set of workload attached (say Virtual Machines) all having virtual IP addresses?

Hi Paul: Thank you for your comments. Please, see mine inline. >>> [Rafa] I guess, it will depend on the scenario. I remember an e-mail to >>> I2NSF (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2nsf/current/msg0.html) >>> mentioning that they were doing sort of case 2 and they would like to

Re: [I2nsf] Call for adoption of draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

Support for WG adoption. Best Regards. > El 15 sept 2017, a las 10:09, Yoav Nir escribió: > > Hi all > > This starts a two-week call for adoption of > draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection. Please send in your comments both > for and against adopting this as a

Re: [I2nsf] Call for adoption of draft-abad-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

Dear Yoav, all: Thank you for all your inputs and discussions about the I-D. We will re-submit as draft-ietf-i2nsf-ipsec-flow-00. Best Regards. > El 2 oct 2017, a las 23:58, Yoav Nir escribió: > > Hi all. > > Thank you all for chiming in. The response was mostly

Re: [I2nsf] comments to draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-02

t is important to document the risks associated with the option, so that > users can make the informed decision. > > > Thanks, Linda Dunbar ------- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 1)

are plausible. Most probably we should start to analyzing the simple (and perhaps more realistic) case: road warrior with IKE case where the SC does not configure the host. Best Regards. > > Yoav --- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Informa

Re: [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 5)

etf-opsawg-nat-yang-17 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-17> the Security Controller could use this netconf module with a gateway to collect NAT information or even configure a NAT. Regarding the usage of UDP, TCP or TLS, since it controls all the networ

Re: [I2nsf] Typo? in Appendix A of draft-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection?

Yes, correct, it is a typo. Thank you. El 5 de diciembre de 2018 22:48:34 CET, Linda Dunbar escribió: > >Gabriel and Rafa, > >On Page 36 (Appendix A), you have the following : >grouping port-range { >description "Port range grouping"; >leaf start { type inet:port-number; description "Start IP

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 1)

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yoav Nir > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 4:39 PM > To: Gabriel Lopez > Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; ip...@ietf.org WG ; Paul Wouters > ; Rafa Marin Lopez > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] Review of > draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-pro

Re: [I2nsf] YANG module update when new algorithms added to IPsec, RE: Reviewing sdn-ipsec-flow-protection

/?include_text=1> > > > Linda > From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org>] > On Behalf Of Yoav Nir > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 12:33 PM > To: Rafa Marin-Lopez mailto:r...@um.es>> > Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org <mailto:i2nsf@i

Re: [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03 (Section 3)

method (i.e. a raw public key, a x509 certificate or preshared keys), DH groups, modes and algorithms for IKE SA negotiation, etc.” Best Regards. ------- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC) Faculty of Compu

Re: [I2nsf] Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-03

Hi Paul: First of all, thank you very much for this impressive review. We are going to process all your comments as soon as possible by separating our answers in different e-mails so that the discussion is easier to follow. In any case, we would like to answer first to your initial question

[I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04.txt

> draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04.txt > Fecha: 11 de marzo de 2019, 20:54:28 CET > Para: "Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia" , "Rafa > Marin-Lopez" , "Rafael Lopez" , "Gabriel > Lopez-Millan" > > > A new version of I-

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Need YANG Doctor reviewing the YANG module of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection which I2NSF is about to call WGLC

t; https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors> >> Mahesh Jethanandani >> mjethanand...@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanand...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> _

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Dear all: As one of the authors of this document, I am not aware of any IPRs related with it. Best Regards. > El 17 abr 2019, a las 16:54, Linda Dunbar escribió: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a four weeks Working Group Last Call on >

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

o use the number of packets lifetime instead of having this new threshold (in xfrm we have seen replay_maxdiff and replay_maxage as such as threshold). Best Regards. > > Paul > > _______ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://ww

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

t;> > > _______ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf --- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Information and

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Hi Tero: > El 4 jun 2019, a las 11:40, Tero Kivinen escribió: > > Rafa Marin-Lopez writes: >> Hi Tero, Paul: >> >>El 2 jun 2019, a las 17:09, Paul Wouters escribió: >> >>On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, Tero Kivinen wrote: >> >>I.e

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Hi Paul: Please see some additional comments inline: snip > >> It can also instruct the affected NSF to send IKEv2 INITIAL_CONTACT. >> >> I think this is something the IKEv2 implementation would determine on >> its own. >> I would remove the sentence or change it to say the

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Hi Linda: > El 21 may 2019, a las 23:02, Linda Dunbar escribió: > > Gabriel and Rofa, > > Just to clarify: the purpose of asking you changing from "container.." to > "grouping.." is for "i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm" to the "ikev2" and > "ietf-ipsec" structure defined in

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

ch protocol to include. Best Regards. > My two cents. > > Linda > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:02 AM Rafa Marin-Lopez <mailto:r...@um.es>> wrote: > Hi Linda: > > In order to see whether we are in the same page here I would like to ask a &

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

pe > ic:integrity-algorithm-t; description "authentication algorithm of the > expired SA"; } > > So if you keep AEAD as a seperate entry, you also need a leaf here for it. [Authors] If the encryption-algorithm is AEAD the authentication(integrity)-algorithm will not contain any algorit

Re: [I2nsf] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

” to specify the value). > > By the way, if you do want to register to IANA, you can send the following > request which can be easily done. > > https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment > <https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment> > > > Cheers, >

Re: [I2nsf] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-04

Dear Martin: Thank you very much for your review. Our comments inline. > El 17 abr 2019, a las 17:54, Martin Björklund via Datatracker > mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> escribió: > > Reviewer: Martin Björklund > Review result: Not Ready > > This is my YANG doctor review of >

[I2nsf] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

t; > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Interface to Network Security Functions WG > of the IETF. > >Title : Software-Defined Networking (SDN)-based

[I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-06.txt

> Asunto: New Version Notification for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-06.txt > Fecha: 29 de julio de 2019, 19:33:32 CEST > Para: "Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia" , "Rafa > Marin-Lopez" , "Rafael Lopez" , "Gabriel > Lopez-Millan&q

Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

>> (or near real-time) tasks as it may happen in IKE-less case, >> then this problem may become serious. >> >> Anyway, I'm happy with the updated text, thank you. >> However, in a following document(s), suggested by Yoav, >> I'd like to see more concrete a

Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

t;>> (or near real-time) tasks as it may happen in IKE-less case, >>> then this problem may become serious. >>> >>> Anyway, I'm happy with the updated text, thank you. >>> However, in a following document(s), suggested by Yoav, >>> I'd

Re: [I2nsf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

ill wait with requesting publication until the I2NSF session next week. > Between now and then, please re-read the draft and send a message to the list > is something is seriously wrong. > > Barring any such shouting, we will request publication right after the > meeting. > >

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

>> I didn't find this discussion in the draft (sorry if I missed it). >> >> Regards, >> Valery. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for getting this done and published. >> >> We will wait with requesting publication until the I2NSF s

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05.txt

Hi Tero: > El 22 jul 2019, a las 16:52, Tero Kivinen escribió: > > Rafa Marin-Lopez writes: >> We submitted a new version of the I-D (v05) where we have applied several >> changes. In the following you have a summary of the main changes, which we >> will expand/expl

Re: [I2nsf] AD Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-07

nd Section 7 of [8192] doesn't mention the security controller at > all. > > (42) Section 9.1. Should configurations adhere to the algorithm > recommendations of RFC8247? > > (43) Section 9.1 and 9.2. Per "The general recommendation is that the > Security Controller MUST

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] [yang-doctors] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

..@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Lou Berger >>>>> Sent: 27 September 2020 15:26 >>>>> To: Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>; >>>>> Martin Björklund mailto:mbj+i...@4668.se>> >>>>> Cc: Robert Wilton >>>

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] [IPsec] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

om: yang-doctors On Behalf Of Lou Berger > Sent: 27 September 2020 15:26 > To: Christian Hopps ; Martin Björklund > Cc: Robert Wilton ; i2nsf@ietf.org; > Gabriel Lopez ; > draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection@ietf.org; ip...@ietf.org; > last-c...@ietf.org; Rafa

Re: [I2nsf] [IPsec] [yang-doctors] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

Hi Christian (, Rob): Thanks for your comments. We really appreciate them. Please see some comments inline. > El 12 oct 2020, a las 22:21, Christian Hopps escribió: > > > >> On Oct 12, 2020, at 3:07 PM, Rafa Marin-Lopez > <mailto:r...@um.es>> wrote: >>

Re: [I2nsf] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-09.txt

a las 20:15, internet-dra...@ietf.org escribió: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-09.txt > has been successfully submitted by Rafa Marin-Lopez and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec

Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

Hi Tom: Please see our comments inline: > El 28 sept 2020, a las 11:33, tom petch escribió: > > On 28/09/2020 10:01, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> Hi Rob, Tom: >> >> Renaming the modules sounds reasonable. With regard to have a different >> prefix, it is

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

default value and w/o an explanation of what happens if that leaf >>> is not set. You should find those and either make them mandatory, >>> add a default value, or explain what it means when it isn't set. >>> As an example, >>&

Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

ee as a source of confusion. If this > is nsf specific, then I would suggest nsfike although nsfikeless then seems a > bit long. > > Tom Petch > >> Regards, >> Rob >> >> >> From: Rafa Marin-Lopez mailto:r...@um.es>> >> Sent: 23 September

Re: [I2nsf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08

he YANG model in the I-D has tried to reflect this discussion. It was never the intention to provide a general YANG model for IPsec. Best Regards. > Thanks, > Rob > > > From: Rafa Marin-Lopez > Sent: 22 September 2020 14:05 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) > Cc: Rafa Marin

Re: [I2nsf] AD Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-07

Your text is better. > > (44) Section 9.1. Editorial. s/One option is to return always /One > option is to always return .../ > > (45) Section 9.1. Per "Moreover, the PSK MUST have a proper length (e.g. > minimum 128 bit lengt

Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

be. > > The example IPv6 address in the YANG module has :0:0: which is usually just :: Fixed. If you have any further comments, please let us know so we can include them in -12 Best Regards. > > And I have some way to go still. > > Tom Petch > > On 22/10/2020 18:

Re: [I2nsf] question on ipsec YANG model

r. We hope these clarifications help to understand the motivation of defining the YANG model in this way. Best Regards and many thanks. > > Thanks, > Chris. > --- Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept. Info

Re: [I2nsf] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08.txt

ernet-dra...@ietf.org> escribió: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-08.txt > has been successfully submitted by Rafa Marin-Lopez and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection > Revision:

Re: [I2nsf] question on ipsec YANG model

n their names to make clear they aren't trying to, and can't > be the base model for general IPsec use. Right now you are naming your > modules "ietf-ipsec-common", "ietf-ipsec-ike", "ietf-ipsec-ikeless" which > doesn't indicate the heavy SDN focus that the models

Re: [I2nsf] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS)

rect. RFC 6040 is the proper reference. Best Regards. > > > > > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://ww

Re: [I2nsf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with COMMENT)

he I2NSF Controller configures in the NSFs. Similarly, the encryption algorithms used in the security association between I2NSF Controller and the NSF MUST have, at least, the same strength as the algorithms used to establish the IPsec SAs.” Is this reasonable? Best Regards. > >

[I2nsf] Fwd: Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Erik: This e-mail is just to confirm that you received our answer regarding your review. Best Regards and thanks again. > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > De: Rafa Marin-Lopez > Asunto: Re: [I2nsf] Erik Kline's Discuss on > draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12

Re: [I2nsf] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS)

Dear Magnus: > El 27 nov 2020, a las 9:56, Magnus Westerlund > escribió: > > Hi, > > Please see below. > > On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 14:48 +, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 19:19 +0100, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >>> Dear

Re: [I2nsf] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with COMMENT)

e document, probably as a new section > before > section 7 (IANA considerations). > > Regards, > Rob > > > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf --

Re: [I2nsf] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS)

Dear Magnus: Please see our comments inline: > El 1 dic 2020, a las 14:56, Magnus Westerlund > escribió: > > Hi, > > Please see inline. > > On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 13:46 +0100, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> Dear Magnus: >> >>> El 27 nov 2020, a las

Re: [I2nsf] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS)

Dear Magnus: Just to check we came to a conclusion to this discussion. Please see below. > El 1 dic 2020, a las 18:28, Magnus Westerlund > escribió: > > Hi, > > See inline. > > On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 16:44 +0100, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> Dear Magnus: >>

Re: [I2nsf] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

can use that. > > [ section 6.2 ] > > * s/Notificsation/Notification/ Fixed. > > * s/conform/constitute/g? Fixed. > > [ appendix A ] > > * "NOT ESP encapsulation." -> "NO ESP encapsulation.", perhaps Fixed. > > [ appendix B ] >

Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

Hi Tom: > El 28 oct 2020, a las 19:02, tom petch escribió: > > On 28/10/2020 10:42, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> Hi Tom: >> >> Thank you very much for your insight. It is very helpful. Please see our >> comments/questions inline. >> >>>

Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

Hi Tom: Thank you very much again. See our comments inline: > El 29 oct 2020, a las 18:06, tom petch escribió: > > Back to routine comments on this I-D; I don't think that any of my earlier > ones are unresolved. > > On 29/10/2020 11:23, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> H

[I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

de octubre de 2020, 15:32:50 CEST > Para: "Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia" , "Rafael > Lopez" , "Gabriel Lopez-Millan" , "Rafa > Marin-Lopez" > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt > has been

[I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-10.txt

"Gabriel Lopez-Millan" , "Rafa Marin-Lopez" , > "Rafael Lopez" , "Fernando Pereniguez-Garcia" > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-10.txt > has been successfully submitted by Rafa Marin-Lopez and post

Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-11.txt

top thinking about it. Thank you very much for all your effort with this. Best Regards. > > Tom Petch > > > On 28/10/2020 10:42, Rafa Marin-Lopez wrote: >> Hi Tom: > > > > > ___ > I2nsf mailing list &g

Re: [I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

2lopez/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr2lopez/> > > e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com <mailto:diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com> > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > -- > > On 14/06/2021, 09:24, "I2nsf on behalf of Rafa Marin-Lopez&

Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

;>>> Hi Diego. >>>>> >>>>>> El 14 jun 2021, a las 16:47, Diego R. Lopez >>>>>> escribió: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks reasonable to me, but I wonder w

[I2nsf] Fwd: AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

//www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9061.form.xml > > > Tracking progress > - > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9061 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for yo

Re: [I2nsf] [AD] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

ined >>> Networking (SDN) >> >> The title seems ok to me. >> >> Best regards, Gabi. >> >> >>> >>> Be goode, >>> >>> -- >>> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno" >>> >>>

Re: [I2nsf] AUTH48 [AP]: RFC 9061 NOW AVAILABLE

t; Dear Alanna, >>> >>> I have revised the last version of the document and all the changes are ok >>> to me. >>> >>> Thank you very much for your work. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Fernando. >>> >>> E

[I2nsf] Fwd: RFC 9061 on A YANG Data Model for IPsec Flow Protection Based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN)

dressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _

Re: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded

t;> Subject: [I2nsf] IETF 114 I2NSF agenda uploaded >> >> >> >> >> >> I2NSF WG, >> >> >> >> Here is the agenda for next week’s I2NSF session (Tuesday). >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agend

[I2nsf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-marin-yang-edhoc-oscore-00.txt

t-marin-yang-edhoc-oscore-00.txt > Fecha: 28 de febrero de 2023, 6:53:41 CET > Para: "Alex Fernandez" > , "Gabriel > Lopez-Millan" , "Laurent Toutain" > , "Rafa Marin-Lopez" , "Rafael > Marin-Lopez" > > > A new versi