RE: IPsec & Markers

OOOOh. I think we are all in sync in our understanding
based on the responses that happened here.

So apologize if that led to a mistargeted fire fight,
but I just wanted to make sure that we all knew about
the draft direction and that we were not moving ahead
with major elements uncovered.

;=)
SG

--- [email protected] wrote:

> I thought that is where we were too. MikeC cried
> "uncle" already. I didn't see anyone else disputing
> that. 
> 
> I also don't understand Somesh's view that the
> change in plans for the draft (experimental to
> standards track) opens anything up particularly. We
> have been working to get the draft to the point
> where that change could occur for a long time and I
> think it was always clear that we wanted to go that
> route if we could get the draft to a point that
> would allow it.
> 
> Regards,
> Pat
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Culley, Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 October, 2004 9:30 AM
> To: [email protected]; Black
> Subject: RE: [rddp] IPsec & Markers
> 
> 
> As a primary draft author, I don't think that we
> have arrived at any
> consensus to change the current draft.  If anything,
> it looks like the
> opposite is true, no change needed.  If anyone
> disagrees, please post
> specific text that you would like to see in an
> updated draft; that will
> probably help clarify the discussion.
> 
> Paul R. Culley
> HP Fellow
> 281-514-5543
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> > Behalf Of Sukanta ganguly
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:44 AM
> > To: Somesh Gupta; [email protected]; Black
> > Subject: RE: [rddp] IPsec & Markers
> > 
> > Hi,
> >   Do we need another draft for finalizing the
> IPSec & Marker 
> > discussion. We have had a lot of discussion but
> seems like no 
> > conclusion is beingh made. We keep on revisiting
> this topic 
> > multiple times.
> >   It definitely is time to  put a formal,
> agreeable statement 
> > resolving this issue so that we can all conclude
> happily.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > SG
> > 
> > --- Somesh Gupta <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > David,
> > > 
> > > As far as MPA is concerned, a lot of the
> discussion held previously 
> > > was under the context of an experimental draft.
> > > 
> > > My assumption is that if it is changes to go on
> the 
> > standards track, 
> > > it would be entirely open for another round of
> discussions.
> > > 
> > > Looking forward to your comments on the topic.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Somesh
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rddp mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We
> finish.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rddp mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rddp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail