[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on: draft-vlado-ipsec-keep-alive-00.txt
OK, then I stand corrected.
I was only trying to point out to Vlado that there was another draft in
progress. I don't recall Vlado ever posting comments about the other draft,
therefore I wasn't sure he knew of its existance.
I'd rather see comments on the existing draft, rather than having 2 drafts
trying to solve the same problem. This would surely help achieve
interoperability a lot sooner.
> Comments below -
>
> Vlado Zafirov wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephane,
> > Well that's my first internet-draft I ever published so please
excuse me
> > for any mistakes I made.
> >
> > I meant to make very simple, low-bandwidth and easy to implement
exchange.
> >
> > I read very fast the proposal draft that you was so kind to send me. It'
very
> > very good. However I believe too complicated and needs a lot of work
> > to be implemented and it's pretty bandwidth intesive.
> >
> > About comments:
> > 1. Yes, it's not a problem. I will make that change and resubmit
the draft.
> > However when Client dies it's just simple mater of reconnecting. Usually
> > problem is when Secure Gateway loose connection because it's should
be
> > restarted or this connection dropped manually.
> >
> > 2. I didn't thought of that and I was not aware of that practice.
Thank you
> > so much for the feedback. This will be changed too.
> >
> > Stephane Beaulieu wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Vlado,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if you were aware of it, but there is another
Internet-Draft
> > > whose goal it is to provide the same functionality. See
> > > http://www.vpnc.org/draft-ietf-ipsec-heartbeats
> > >
> > > It has received quite a bit of feedback, and I think that most people
are
> > > pretty satisfied with it.
>
> This is absolute nonsense. Take a straw poll right now.
>
> <much trimmed after this...>
>
> All in all, I think the rough consensus was that a much simpler
> mechanism would suffice.
>
> Scott
>
>
References: