Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io> wrote:
>> I was going through documents, and I was supprised that when we made
>> RFC7296 into STD79, that we didn't include RFC4301 into STD79. (and
>> maybe 4302 and 4303)
> Does it make sense to include it into the IKE protocol STD, or should
> we create one for IPsec itself?
I dunno.
I think it's a good bikeshed discussion to have.
Do we want to cycle things separately? I think that ultimately, we won't.
New features that go into ESP need to be negotiated with IKEv2, so I'd put
them all into STD79.
> But yes, they should be promoted from PROPOSED STANDARD to INTERNET
> STANDARD :)
okay, so do we need new documents, or can some just be blessed to STD via
IESG action? Probably we should make a list of documents.
Generally, we'd need new documents if there are significant features which
have NEVER been useful/implemented, and we should drop them first.
(I think that all of AH might fall into that, sadly)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
