Subject: [Hipsec] Re: AW: ICE-for-HIP design choice: STUN or HIP?

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:58:42 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:

Andrei wanted to participate to the draft, but unfortunately he didn't
have time. We agreed that I will continue as the editor.

> Is the only change in the document that it now has a new editor, Andrei 
> Gurtov?
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: ext Miika Komu [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2007 11:04
>> An: Philip Matthews
>> Cc: Dan Wing; Tschofenig, Hannes; HIP WG
>> Betreff: Re: ICE-for-HIP design choice: STUN or HIP?
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Philip Matthews wrote:
>>
>>> Now that there are two competing proposals for how to do
>> ICE-for-HIP:
>>> 	http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-01.txt
>>> and
>>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hip-ice-00.txt
>>> it seems to me that it would be good to step back for a
>> moment and have a
>>> discussion on some basic design choices. Discussing these
>> individually would
>>> help the design process, in my opinion.
>>
>> Just a reminder that the complete revised version has not
>> submitted yet
>> because there is still time to the submission DL. The revised
>> version is
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.iki.fi/miika/docs/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-02-pre6.txt
>>
>> --
>> Miika Komu
>> http://www.iki.fi/miika/
>>
>

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec