[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re[4]: IPSEC at Dec IETF

To: Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com
Subject: Re: Re[4]: IPSEC at Dec IETF
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 09:21:27 -0500
Cc: perry@imsi.com, ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "01 Dec 1994 17:45:00 CST." <M7654.001.5rje0.1.941202004737Z.CC-MAIL*/OU=SECCG/OU=AZBH/PRMD=MOT/ADMD=MOT/C=US/@MHS>
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com


Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com says:
> This all sounds good. Mainly because I though this is close to where we left 
> off at the last meeting. 

Indeed.

> I am reiterating these points because we seem to be saying the same
> thing now but your draft specification did not seem to reflect these
> ideas. Are we on the same wavelength now?

My draft (unreleased) actually was just an attempt to rephrase and
clarify Ran's drafts, to specify how they should operate with IPv4,
and to correct the problem with the ESP format. That was all of what I
attempted.

I think we have already come to consensus on our bit format and are
simply having trouble coming to consensus on which text will be used
to define it. :-)

.pm

References:

Re[4]: IPSEC at Dec IETF

From: Paul_Lambert-P15452@email.mot.com

Prev by Date: Re: IPSEC at Dec IETF
Next by Date: Re: Re[2]: IPSEC at Dec IETF
Prev by thread: Re[4]: IPSEC at Dec IETF
Next by thread: Re: IPSEC at Dec IETF
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread