At 9:59 AM -0700 7/12/09, Dan Harkins wrote: > Of course, since p-3=a and the generator is the same it may not matter.
Exactly. >But it still seems wrong to have two different documents defining the same >curve differently, even if they are uncorrelated Informational RFCs. Again: RFC 5114 does not "define" those three curves. The IANA registry, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters>, defines them, and has the definition pointing to RFC 4753. > Can you elaborate on why you don't want to "ask the 4753bis authors to >significantly expand their document in a way that they didn't intend in >the original"? Yes. The current rfc4752bis, which is in IETF Last Call, has a very clear focus, namely to fix the error that started this thread. Asking them to also take on work that is unrelated to that focus is inappropriate. If they wanted to do that, they could have done so before IETF Last Call. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
