Benjamin Kaduk writes:
> Sorry! I think that the current charter allows us to do an 8229bis
> without additional rechartering.
Good.
I myself think it is better to do bis documents than just
clarification guidelines as splitting things to multiple documents do
make things harder to implement.
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:07:08AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:54:26PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > > [With chair hat on]
> > >
> > > Yes, the charter says that we are to make a guidance document. If the
> > working group feels that it’s better to put the
Hi Ben,
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:54:26PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > [With chair hat on]
> >
> > Yes, the charter says that we are to make a guidance document. If the
> working group feels that it’s better to put the specification and guidance in
> a
> single document, we can work on that and
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:54:26PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> [With chair hat on]
>
> Yes, the charter says that we are to make a guidance document. If the working
> group feels that it’s better to put the specification and guidance in a
> single document, we can work on that and clear it with
[With chair hat on]
Yes, the charter says that we are to make a guidance document. If the working
group feels that it’s better to put the specification and guidance in a single
document, we can work on that and clear it with the ADs.
Charters can be modified.
Yoav
> On 29 Apr 2020, at
Hi Tommy,
> Hi Valery,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this
an
> RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to
fold
> some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel
about
> that?
I'd be happy to do it.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Tommy Pauly wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this an
RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to fold
some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel about
that?
That might
Hi Valery,
Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you be interested in making this an
RFC8229bis instead? I think it would be most useful for an implementer to fold
some of these clarifications into the main text itself. How do you feel about
that?
Best,
Tommy
> On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:54
Hi,
a one and half year ago at IETF 103 in Bangkok I presented
draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines
"Clarifications and Implementation Guidelines for using TCP Encapsulation in
IKEv2"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyslov-ipsecme-tcp-guidelines/).
>From my recollection of the meeting
