On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:01:39AM -0800, Dan Harkins wrote: > > > On 12/23/19 10:46 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Since we're in pedantic process mode... > [snip] > > Perhaps something like "IKEv1 is no longer relevant for Internet > > systems" would work, though I suspect we could even get away without such > > an intro sentence and just dive in straight with "Systems running IKEv1 > > should be upgraded and reconfigured to run IKEv2. > > See that's the thing. There is nothing compelling to force the change > away > from "no longer relevant" so people still use it. If there was something > compelling to make people want to change we wouldn't be forced to do this, > sigh, die die die nonsense. Perhaps, "we're the IETF and we are really > serious now". That should dispel all doubt in whoever happens to read this > RFC. That way we won't need a die die die die or a die die die die die die.
I'm only aboue 95% sure I'm parsing you properly -- you're saying that if there was a clear reason to move from IKEv1 to IKEv2 the market would have done it already and we wouldn't be bothering with a doc like this? That is, that what we're really doing is akin to "we're the IETF and we pinky-swear that we're not going to touch this anymore" as opposed to "here is a list of the ways that using IKEv1 is going to bite you"? Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
