Re: [IPsec] NIST question concerning IKEv2 and quantum resistance

Hi Panos, thank you for sharing this draft. A couple of quick comments. First, I think that it is better to use a new status Notification to negotiate this feature rather than a Vendor ID payload. It is more in line with the way other IKEv2 extensions are negotiated and it would allow not

Re: [IPsec] meeting at IETF-95 ?

+1 to having a meeting at IETF 95. Thanks, Tommy > On Jan 12, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > I hope we are scheduling a meeting for IETF-95. Last time we did not > meet and ended up meeting in the hallway. This time there are more > drafts being suggested and

[IPsec] meeting at IETF-95 ?

I hope we are scheduling a meeting for IETF-95. Last time we did not meet and ended up meeting in the hallway. This time there are more drafts being suggested and worked on. Paul ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org

Re: [IPsec] New Version Notification for draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compression-00.txt

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote: > > Yoav Nir writes: >> Second, as I understand it, those battery-powered devices tend to >> use 802.15.4 networks with 127-byte frames. There’s 6LoWPAN to >> provide fragmentation support, but that’s similar to using IKE’s >>