Hi Yoav,
RFC 4306 is the main specification for IKEv2, and RFC 4307 provides
details that are necessary to implement IKEv2 in an interoperable
manner. So why do you think that an Informative reference is more
appropriate here?
The relevant background, FWIW, is
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 05/09/2010 09:13 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
I'm fine with the change, and with the reference being either normative or
informative. I prefer informative, though.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yaron
Sheffer
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 11:55 PM
To: IPsecme WG
Subject: [IPsec] IESG DISCUSS re: IKEv2-bis and RFC 4307
Hi everyone,
There is a DISCUSS position from an IESG member on the ikev2bis document
that says:
The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 4 May 2010 raised a question
that deserves consideration. Elwyn said:
s3.3.4: The draft states that the list of mandatory to implement
suites has been removed due to evolution going too fast. However
there are effectively some mandatory to implement suites; they are
listed in other documents. There should be a way of finding them
so that users and implmenters can find them easily.
Inclusion of a informative reference seems reasonable. There could be
warning that the algorithm document is likely to be updated without
a corresponding update to the protocol. The RFC index will tell the
community when the algorithm document is revised.
The previous WG chose not to put any reference to RFC 4307 into RFC
4306, so this would be a change. Having said that, adding a reference is
not much of a change. Proposed wording for 3.3.4 would be:
CURRENT:
The specification of suites that MUST and SHOULD be supported for
interoperability has been removed from this document because they are
likely to change more rapidly than this document evolves.
PROPOSED:
The specification of suites that MUST and SHOULD be supported for
interoperability is not included this document because they are
likely to change more rapidly than this document evolves. At
the time of publication of this document, [RFC 4307] specifies
these suites, but note that it might be updated in the future, and
other RFCs might specify different sets of suites.
RFC 4307 would be listed as a normative reference.
Please note that we are going one better than Elwyn's comment, in adding
4307 as a normative, rather than informational, reference. Is there any
objection in the WG to this change?
Thanks,
Yaron
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
