> On Aug 25, 2022, at 01:17, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 00:52, Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I.e., either this document needs to formally update RFC 4303 by allowing any
>>> number or another IP protocol number must be requested to the IANA.
>>
>> As I pointed out in my previous email that is not the case.
>>
>> The RFC4303 ESP has a Next Header field which contains indicates what
>> type of packet is inside the ESP packet. It typically contains IP
>> Protocol Numbers, but not always. Thats why the RFC4303 above says
>> "chosen from the set of IP Protocol Numbers".
>>
>> I disagree. 4303 S2.6 is very clearly talking about the Protocol Numbers
>> registry (the example of "41 means IPv6" is one of the things that give it
>> away).
>>
>> I think this document needs to request a protocol number from IANA.
Of course if the fastest way to clear this discuss, is for you as INT area
director to approve an IP protocol number allocation -- and this doesn't poison
pill the document with the rest of the IESG -- then of course we can also take
an IP protocol number to move the document forward.
Can we poll during the telechat call later today to get assurance that no-one
else will block the document due to an IP protocol number allocation?
Thanks,
Chris.
>
> Well of course this isn't the correct route. And that's because there is
> absolutely no reason to remove 1 of the 256 IP protocol numbers from the
> internet for IPsec only use.
>
> This has been understood by everyone in IPsec, as Tero, the IPsec WG chair,
> has tried to explain.
>
> IPsec has not been reserving IP protocol numbers since the text you unable to
> get past was written -- because it makes no sense to. At *most* we need to
> document that to clear this DISCUSS.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
