RE: question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft
"Dennis Beard"<beardd@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 16 May 2002 13:30 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 g4GDUPL05980; Thu, 16 May 2002 06:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA07365 Thu, 16 May 2002 08:51:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <0D7FC1D8D861D511AEA70002A52CE5E60253EF7B@zcard0ke.ca.nortel.com>
From: Dennis Beard <beardd@nortelnetworks.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mat@cisco.com>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: RE: question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 15:55:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C1FC4A.7E0E2922"
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi Mike, Paul can comment in more detail, however "code preserving" does not mean a full implementation of IKEv1. Radia Perlman can also expand on this topic. Hope this note finds you well. Cheers, Dennis Beard -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mat@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:34 PM To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com Subject: question on "code preserving" section in Paul's draft 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