question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft
Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com> Wed, 15 May 2002 19:07 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g4FJ7ZL07629; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA05028 Wed, 15 May 2002 14:20:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15586.43515.644098.353766@thomasm-u1.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:33:31 -0700
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft
X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 6) "Big Bend" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: &, heK/V66p?[2!i|tVn, 9lN0TUvEv7:9FzXREj/AuzN4m<D]vnFJ>u!4x[/Z4t{V}~L]+Sk @RFNnJEg~WZ/(8<`5a), -7ukALWa^&?&D2R0CSG3kO5~#6JxLF\d, g">$%B!0w{W)qIhmwhye104zd bUcI'1!
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Paul's SOI draft seems to imply that an IKEv2 implementation must also implement IKEv1 as well. Is that the intention of the IKEv2 authors? If so, there's more to this issue, not the least of which is an even *heavier* burden placed on small memory footprint widgets. Mike
- question on "code preserving" section in Paul's d… Michael Thomas
- Re: question on "code preserving" section in Paul… Dan Harkins
- Re: question on "code preserving" section in Paul… Michael Thomas
- Re: question on "code preserving" section in Paul… Dan Harkins
- RE: question on "code preserving" section in Paul… Dennis Beard