[IPsec] 答复: New Version Notification for draft-guo-ipsecme-ikev2-using-shangmi-00.txt

2024-03-11 Thread Xialiang(Frank, IP Security Standard)
Hi Paul: Thanks for your advices and the comments for the draft! About your suggestion of ISE process, and the IPSecME WG "Expert Review", we will follow this existing way. For the comments corresponding to the CBC and GCM variant, please find my response as follows: For CBC variant, we keep

[IPsec] IETF 119 agenda items

2024-03-11 Thread Tero Kivinen
If you have anything that you want to be included in the IETF 119 agenda, please send email to the IPsecME WG chairs (ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org) as soon as possible, as I will be making the final agenda tomorrow... -- kivi...@iki.fi ___ IPsec mailing

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-he-ipsecme-vpn-shared-ipsecsa-00.txt

2024-03-11 Thread Paul Wouters
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Panwei (William) wrote: Indeed, splitting the 32-bit SPI into two sub-fields, the VPN ID sub-field and SPI sub-field, may also be one option. This solution doesn't need to change the ESP packet format, but it also has some disadvantages. The first one is the scalable

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-he-ipsecme-vpn-shared-ipsecsa-00.txt

2024-03-11 Thread Panwei (William)
Hi Paul, Thanks for your quick comments. But I'm sorry for the late response due to I was out of the office for a few days. > I can see how you want an extra SPD selector for the VPN ID - but > maybe call it Namespace ID or something else as VPN ID is confusing. Thanks for pointing out