Hi all I've just noticed that section 3.12 of the bis draft has the following text:
Writers of Internet-Drafts who wish to extend this protocol MUST define a Vendor ID payload to announce the ability to implement the extension in the Internet-Draft. It is expected that Internet-Drafts that gain acceptance and are standardized will be given "magic numbers" out of the Future Use range by IANA, and the requirement to use a Vendor ID will go away. This seems like a weird requirement, and in fact hasn't been in use so far. Neither the individual extensions nor the extensions currently created by this WG define any Vendor IDs. The more common procedure is to announce support for the extension using a notification (private at first and later from IANA) and not use any VendorID at all. This is supported by section 3.10: "Notify payloads with status types MAY be added to any message and MUST be ignored if not recognized." How would people feel about demoting this MUST to a MAY ? Email secured by Check Point _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
