Re: Complyence

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 18 March 1998 01:44 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id UAA21920 for ipsec-outgoing; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:44:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:57:56 -0500
X-Sender: kent@po1.bbn.com (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v03110706b1343c54cd3f@[128.89.30.10]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980317101348.006c1744@192.9.200.10>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: rohit <rohit@trinc.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Complyence
Cc: ipsec@tis.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

At 10:13 AM +0500 3/17/98, rohit wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>  Whether it is necessary ( MUST ) to implement ICMP PMTU processing , in
>order to make our implementation comply to the IpSec Architecture draft ?
>
>				  - Thanks

Section 6 of the IPsec architecture defines certain aspects of ICMP PMTU
processing that are a MUST.

Complyence rohit
Re: Complyence Michael C. Richardson
Re: Complyence Stephen Kent