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

Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis

To: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino), kent@bbn.com
Subject: Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:55:54 -0800
Cc: bora@cisco.com, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: <20040306130924.A1D2958@coconut.itojun.org>
References: <p06020412bc6e9ae5a081@[128.89.89.75]><20040306130924.A1D2958@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

Reading through the current draft, I have to agree with Itojun and 
Bora. It's hard to say that the cache is optional when it appears in 
MUST statements, such as in section 5.1. There should either be 
parallel discussions (simpler ones with the cache, more complicated 
ones without the cache), or the main document should describe only 
the mandatory features, and an appendix or different document 
describe the improvements you get with the optional cache.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>

References:
- Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
  - From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
- Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
  - From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)

Prev by Date: Re: IPSec on tunneling mechanisms
Next by Date: Re: [Cfrg] Re: your mail
Previous by thread: Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
Next by thread: Re: SPD Cache in 2401bis
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread