IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] IPsecME virtual meeting minutes, and way forward with fragmentation

daniel migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5ED21F93C4 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.658, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id za8eQ4dijflu for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2641A21F9347 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 07DE85D88F4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 10:46:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A0A5D88F2 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 10:46:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 17 May 2013 10:46:15 +0200
Received: from [10.193.169.114] ([10.193.169.114]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 17 May 2013 10:46:15 +0200
Message-ID: <5195EE37.5080709@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:45:43 +0200
From: daniel migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipsec@ietf.org
References: <D49F3A1B-0BB0-4C48-84FB-00D8D86F0B3C@vpnc.org> <51950FF7.1050707@gmail.com> <E4D705FB-5DD4-4256-B106-69C13A2715AB@cisco.com> <C5E07507-29BE-4E69-A5A9-04D53C12666F@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5E07507-29BE-4E69-A5A9-04D53C12666F@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2013 08:46:15.0691 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDEE15B0:01CE52DA]
Subject: Re: [IPsec] IPsecME virtual meeting minutes, and way forward with fragmentation
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mglt.ietf@gmail.com
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 08:46:22 -0000

yes, that was me.

Daniel
On 05/17/2013 10:08 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> On May 17, 2013, at 2:54 AM, Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Yaron: do we want to stay with the current TCP-based solution?
>>> 	Brian: might be running on sensors that don't have a TCP stack
>> Someone made this comment, but it wasn't me.
> That was Daniel.
>
> Yoav
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status