Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?

Sorry, I goofed.
Please ignore my previous mail.

I fully agree with sakane-san (i.e. first #1, then #4).

From: Nobuo OKABE <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:56:18 +0900 (JST)

> From: Shoichi Sakane <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: KINK should referenece to IKEv2?
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:20:17 +0900
> 
> > so we can have four choices while researching the difference between
> > 2401bis and RFC2401 from KINK requirement of view:
> > 
> > 	1. make a standard base on both rfc2401 and IKEv1.
> > 	2. make a standard base on both rfc2401 and IKEv2.
> > 	3. make a standard base on both 2401bis and IKEv1.
> > 	4. make a standard base on both 2401bis and IKEv2.
> > 
> > I would like #1 then we proceed to #4.
> 
> I agree with your choise (i.e. #4) if we can keep new milestones
> which the chairs proposed today.
> 
> My point is how stable 2401bis is.

----- nobuo