Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote:
>> 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)
> I have tried to kill AH a number of times and failed. I don't think we
> can strip it out of 430x documents, sadly. I think with IPsec being
> deployed throughout internal non-internet connected structures, we
> couldn't really evaluate its deployment well anyway. But perhaps any
> new variants (like the EESP we are talking about now) could try harder
> to not specify AH variants.
I think that we can just avoid lifting RFC4302.
It's not like we are marking AH "Historic" here. We are just not going to IS
with it.
Documents like RFC4305, which explicitely mentions AH, have already been
obsoleted. We are also about to update it again, and I don't know if the new
document (or this series of algorithms) could even belong in a STD... and
yet, it really ought to be in the document set.
--
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
