As with DNR, I definitely think we should be using the wire format here (for
communicating on the wire). The IKE option here would carry the binary format
for the parameters, and it doesn’t require the IKE implementation to do any
parsing, etc on that.
Since it looks like there’s good
I’ve done a review pass of this document. In general, I think it is technically
good.
I did find several places where I think additional clarity or editorial
improvements could be made. To address these, I’ve proposed the following pull
request:
...@ietf.org>> On
> Behalf Of Tommy Pauly
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:33 PM
> To: Tero Kivinen mailto:kivi...@iki.fi>>; ipsec@ietf.org
> <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] WGLC of draft-ietf-ipsecme-add-ike
>
> I’ve done a review pa
I also support adopting this document, and am also happy to review it.
Thanks,
Tommy
> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:35 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> This is two week adoption call for
> draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension. If you support adopting
> this document as a working group document
I support adoption of this document, and am happy to review it through the
working group process.
Thanks,
Tommy
> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
> This is two week adoption call for draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp. If you
> support adopting this document as a working group
101 - 105 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
