[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments Re: draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Comments Re: draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02
- From: "Eran Dvir" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:03:31 -0400 (EDT)
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
I read this draft and agree that these tunnel types should be allocated as
14 IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] in the
Tunnel-mode with IKEv2 [RFC4306]
15 Microsoft Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP)
As a further note having to use the WG work item and WG last call
procedures on a document that allocates two tunnel types seems like
excessive bureaucratic work load. It seems that if no-one has specific
issues with this document tunnel types should be allocated immediately?
Over use of these processes and unneeded obstacles for ?adding values? to
attributes would only result in less standard use of the protocols or
implementation of alternatives.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.