Hi Tommy,
> I agree with the points you bring up for MOBIKE (not changing the message ID,
> and needing to recalculate
> NAT detection payloads). Those are useful to clarify.
>
> Regarding retransmissions/puzzles/error handling, I agree with Paul that the
> recommendations being
> provided in
Hi Valery,
Thanks for sharing this!
I agree with the points you bring up for MOBIKE (not changing the message ID,
and needing to recalculate NAT detection payloads). Those are useful to clarify.
Regarding retransmissions/puzzles/error handling, I agree with Paul that the
recommendations being
Hi Paul,
> > I've posted a draft with clarifications and implementation guidelines
> > for RFC8229. These clarifications and recommendations are based
> > on experience of implementing TCP encapsulation and testing it in
> > various IKEv2 scenarios.
> >
> > Feedback of any sort is highly
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, Valery Smyslov wrote:
I've posted a draft with clarifications and implementation guidelines
for RFC8229. These clarifications and recommendations are based
on experience of implementing TCP encapsulation and testing it in
various IKEv2 scenarios.
Feedback of any sort is
Hi,
I've posted a draft with clarifications and implementation guidelines
for RFC8229. These clarifications and recommendations are based
on experience of implementing TCP encapsulation and testing it in
various IKEv2 scenarios.
Feedback of any sort is highly appreciated.
Regards,
Valery.
>
