Paul Hoffman writes: > Yes, I should have worked this out more fully before posting. > > In all cases, I would add a reference to the IANA registry. > > Only lists code points: remove the whole table > 2.22: IPComp Tranform IDs > 3.3.2: Encryption, PRF, integrity, DH group, ESN
I can agree removing those whole tables. > 3.1: Exchange types > 3.3.1: Protocol ID > 3.3.5: Transform attributes > 3.15: CFG type These I would leave in, but remove the RESERVED, RESERVED TO IANA and PRIVATE USE lines, i.e. leave only the values used in this document. These are needed when developing the protocol, and having yet another indirection there would just be annoying developers. > Lists semantics, remove the code points but leave the semantics: > 3.5: Identification types > 3.10.1: Notify messages > 3.13.1: Traffic selectors I would keep values for those too, but remove RESERVED/PRIVATE etc ranges, i.e. keep numbers needed to implement this protocol (and referenced by this RFC), but by removing the reserved and private use range definitions, it makes it clear this is not full list, so if someone wants to see full list, they need to go to the iana-registry. And I would move these to the same category: > 3.2: Next payload type -- remove value > 3.3.2: Transform type -- remove type number > 3.6: Certificate encoding -- remove type number, leave in UNSPECIFIED > 3.15.1: Attribute types -- remove type number I.e. leave number. > 3.3.3: Transform types by protocol -- leave in whole table This I agree :-) -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
