On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Khan, Fayyaz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I would also add a few cents.
>
> At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
>>O...
>> > IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other
> OS. With
>> > most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and I
Tero Wrote:
> RFC4718 is informational and tried to clarify things which are not
> clear in RFC4306. Now we are writing standard track document when
> revising RFC4306 and in that case we can even change things specified
> in RFC4306, if needed. In this case I do not think we need to change
> thing
I would also add a few cents.
At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
>O...
> > IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other
OS. With
> > most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and IPsec.
>
>I guess we do not need tunnel model for IPv6 ipsec?
>what mak
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:36:20PM +0300, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Nicolas Williams writes:
> > - Section 8.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: this sentence is
> >grammatically incorrect, and I'm unsure as to what is meant.
>
> This was commented already by others and was changed to:
>
> For e
I would also add a few cents.
At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
>O...
> > IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other
OS. With
> > most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and IPsec.
>
>I guess we do not need tunnel model for IPv6 ipsec?
>what
At 11:29 PM +0800 10/14/09, Zhen Cao wrote:
O...
> IPv6 hosts, like IPv4 hosts, run Linux, BSD, Windows or some other OS. With
> most of them, the latest versions support IPv6 for IKE and IPsec.
I guess we do not need tunnel model for IPv6 ipsec?
what makes you say that? unnelT mode is still
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Hi Hui
>
> I think there is very little difference between IPv4 and IPv6 as regards to
> IPsec. See below
>
> On Oct 11, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
>
>> Dear IPsec forks,
>>
>> May I get advice about the differnce between them:
>> 1) IPv4 d
The IESG has received a request from the IP Security Maintenance and
Extensions WG (ipsecme) to consider the following document:
- 'Wrapped ESP for Traffic Visibility '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
Nicolas Williams writes:
> - Section 7, 1st paragraph: MOBIKE is mentioned without a reference.
> - Section 7, 2nd paragraph: s/avare/aware/
> - Section 8.1, next to last sentence: this sentence is grammatically
>incorrect, I think. How about:
> If the protocol (also known as the, "ne
Thanks -- I've asked the secretariat to start the IETF Last Call!
Here are the first IETF Last Call comments (none of them major):
- The text about 8-octet alignment probably needs some small
clarifications. For IPv6, 8-octet alignment is not optional, so
"SHOULD" is not really correct. And ther
10 matches
Mail list logo
