Subject: RE: AD requests WG review of final revisions to draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-reqts-06.txt <= 48hrs please

From: "William Dixon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:49:51 -0800

Thanks Tero. Cc'ing the list. Any others have comments on the proposed
changes ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:53 PM
To: William Dixon
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: FW: AD requests WG review of final revisions to
draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-reqts-06.txt <= 48hrs please

William Dixon writes:
> NAT-T authors, please make sure you are ok with these changes in next
24hrs.

I checked the changes out, and they seem to be ok. 

> I noticed also that UDP-ESP-08 currently lacks a statement on how it 
> meets the requirements.

I noticed that when I edited it, but didn't want to add it myself.

> IKE NAT-T has such a statement in the intro. Thanks, -Wm

And that actually states, that the IKE NAT-T in combination with UDP-ENCAPS
represents an "unconditionally compliant" solution to the requirements as
defined by [Aboba03]...
--
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:55:30 -0500

William,

Thanks for the response at this late date. Since you indicated a 
willingness to adopt my suggested text for the first issue, I'm happy 
going forward.

Steve