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

Re: Complyence

To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: Complyence
From: "Michael C. Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:25:31 -0500
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:13:48 +0500." <3.0.1.32.19980317101348.006c1744@192.9.200.10>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com


>>>>> "rohit" == rohit  <rohit@trinc.com> writes:
    rohit> Hi All,

    rohit>   Whether it is necessary ( MUST ) to implement ICMP PMTU processing , in
    rohit> order to make our implementation comply to the IpSec Architecture draft ?

  I think it is a very STRONG SHOULD.
  I don't think it is something that should worry you in release number 1,
but don't code yourself into a corner.

   :!mcr!:            |  Sandelman Software Works Corporation, Ottawa, ON  
   Michael Richardson |Network and security consulting and contract programming
 Personal: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html">mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>. PGP key available.
 Corporate: <A HREF="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/SSW/">sales@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</A>.

References:

Complyence

From: rohit <rohit@trinc.com>

Prev by Date: Re: No SPD
Next by Date: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-cbc-02.txt
Prev by thread: Complyence
Next by thread: Re: Complyence
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread