As we were directed by both INT ADs at this point, and had no object by the
other ADs during the telechat call, I've treated this as a "take our money"
moment and have requested early allocation of an IP protocol code point to move
things forward.
If in the (distant?) future INT needs to take
Indeed, they was the conclusion of the transport area at the time. I would also
prefer we could stick with that better solution, but more importantly I don’t
want this document stopped by a DISCUSS on either side of this argument.
Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> On Aug 25,
On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline wrote:
> I think this document needs to request a protocol number from IANA.
Erik, the WG had this debate at length two+ years ago.
I feel that the WG, through our AD, asked the IESG and the IntArea and
Transport Area this specific question in a number
Erik Kline writes:
>
>
>
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing
> any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303 ESP
Christian Hopps writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Good signature from 2E1D830ED7B83025 Christian Hopps
(trust ultimate) created at 2022-08-25T02:18:48-0400 using
RSA]]
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" writes:
Chris,
The -17 version indeed addresses one of the 4 DISCUSS points, namely the hop
limit
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" writes:
Chris,
The -17 version indeed addresses one of the 4 DISCUSS points, namely the hop
limit vs. TTL. Thank you for this.
I am far from being convinced that the added text about ICMP handling is rock
solid though. While I cannot point a specific issue, I fear
Chris,
The -17 version indeed addresses one of the 4 DISCUSS points, namely the hop
limit vs. TTL. Thank you for this.
I am far from being convinced that the added text about ICMP handling is rock
solid though. While I cannot point a specific issue, I fear that aggregating
and fragmenting
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 01:17, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
>>> number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>>
>> As I pointed
> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>
>
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303
> > I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing
> any
> > number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>
> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>
> The RFC4303 ESP has a Next Header field which contains indicates what
>
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker writes:
--
DISCUSS:
--
## DISCUSS
### Section 2.2.6
Please also mention hop-limit and RFC 8200.
### Absence of ICMP
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker writes:
> ## DISCUSS
>
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
> DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
>
> ### Section 6.1
>
> ```
>An AGGFRAG payload is identified by the ESP Next Header
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker writes:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
14 matches
Mail list logo
