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

Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits

To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:22:34 +0100
Cc: "Michael Roe" <mroe@microsoft.com>, "Karen Seo" <kseo@bbn.com>, "IPsec WG" <ipsec@lists.tislabs.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:23:02 EST. <p06020416bc6b4618ac3c@[172.16.39.232]>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Maybe you didn't see my response,

=> I didn't see your response in time... Sorry.

   which said that the text was 
   outdated and that there need not be such a constraint.
   
=> so my concern is solved!

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: I know many IPsec implementations which spuriously check the external
source address... IMHO the document should not be changed (i.e., no
SHOULD NOT) but this point should be checked in interoperability tests.

References:
- Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits
Next by Date: Re: IPSec on tunneling mechanisms
Previous by thread: Re: draft-ietf-rfc2401bis-01: editorial nits
Next by thread: Ordered and unordered SPD in draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2401bis-01
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread