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

RE: exchange type 6?

To: "'Dan Harkins'" <dharkins@potassium.cips.nokia.com>
Subject: RE: exchange type 6?
From: "Andrew Krywaniuk" <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:24:08 -0500
Cc: <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200102212031.f1LKVI658432@potassium.cips.nokia.com>
Reply-To: <andrew.krywaniuk@alcatel.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

>   Don't you think that the response Derrell received should
> be the response
> you receive?

No, I thought the WG and IANA should have accomodated Derrell's request.

I believe it is more important to be sensible than to be consistent. Others
may disagree.

Reserving exchange mode 6 doesn't mean the WG has to give credence to config
mode. They can allocate it as "deprecated" for all I care.

Andrew
-------------------------------------------
Upon closer inspection, I saw that the line
dividing black from white was in fact a shade
of grey. As I drew nearer still, the grey area
grew larger. And then I was enlightened.

Follow-Ups:

RE: exchange type 6?

From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

References:

Re: exchange type 6?

From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@potassium.cips.nokia.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Question about the ISAKMP Notification Payload
Next by Date: Re: On the Use of SCTP with IPsec
Prev by thread: Re: exchange type 6?
Next by thread: RE: exchange type 6?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread