Nicolas Williams writes:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:36:20PM +0300, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Yes. That was what I tried to say. Do you think my already changed
sentence is ok, or do we need to explain it more.
Well, the heuristics will benefit from the information cached for the
TCP/UDP flow
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, next
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 example,
. 27.
Thanks,
Yaron
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 23:28
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] WG last call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics-01
This is to begin
Note: I did not review the appendix nor its sub-sections.
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:34:24PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Done.
One more comment:
- State keeping by intermediate nodes is described as an optimization,
however: a) I'm not sure that that necessarily follows, since state
keeping and cache index lookups are not free, and anyways,
Thanks, Nico! However...
At 1:35 PM -0500 10/13/09, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Note: I did not review the appendix nor its sub-sections.
Please do. :-)
Seriously, folks, the appendix is pretty important, inasmuch as some developers
will pay more attention to it than they do the main body. It
Scott C Moonen writes:
- Is Section 1.2 necessary? None of these terms are used in this fashion
in this document.
True. Removed.
- page 8, sees an new = sees a new
- page 8, in the Section 8 = in Section 8
Fixed.
- page 12, excessive space in i.e. UDP encapsulated; perhaps replace
I support advancing this document, and I think the explanations and
pseudo code are good.
I do, however, question the value of it in real life.
Security policies or the deep inspection kind usually are something
like:
- allow HTTP and HTTPS, and verify headers
- allow ICMP and DNS
-
://scott.andstuff.org/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/smoonen
From:
Yaron Sheffer yar...@checkpoint.com
To:
ipsec@ietf.org ipsec@ietf.org
Date:
09/17/2009 04:28 PM
Subject:
[IPsec] WG last call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics-01
This is to begin a 2 week working group last call for
draft-ietf
This is to begin a 2 week working group last call for
draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics-01. The target status for this document
is Informational.
Please send your comments to the ipsec list by Oct. 1, 2009, as follow-ups to
this message.
Note that this document has had very little review
11 matches
Mail list logo
