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

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

To: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
From: Radha Gowda <rxg@openroute.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:04:29 -0400
CC: Ben McCann <bmccann@indusriver.com>, "ipsec@lists.tislabs.com" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.991013164106.21188q-100000@jvilhube-ss20.cisco.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

> To the list at large:
>
> Why can't we put verbiage like this into the RFC? Is there some reason this
> is a bad thing to do?

I also would like to point out to the list that Diffie-Hellman calculation does
not
come cheap for some of us (atleast for now).

Follow-Ups:

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

From: Kanta Matsuura <kanta@hideki.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

From: Paul Koning <pkoning@xedia.com>

References:

Re: Racing QM Initiator's

From: Jan Vilhuber <vilhuber@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Next by Date: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Prev by thread: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Next by thread: Re: Racing QM Initiator's
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread